DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) of claims 1-16 are withdrawn in view of the amendments to claims 1, 10, and 2.
Examiner acknowledges the amendments to the claims received on 6/17/2026 have been entered, and that no new matter has been added.
Response to Arguments
Argument 1: Applicant argues on page 15 in the filing on 6/17/2026 that the cited prior art “Schrichte” does not teach “during the application of the redaction to the selected text fragment within the cell, the file format of the spreadsheet document remains unchanged or unaffected,” in amended claim 1.
Response to Argument 1: Argument 1 is moot in view of new grounds of rejection. The scope of the amendment has changed and new art has been applied.
This meets the claim limitations as currently claimed, and Applicant's Argument 1 filed on 6/17/2026 are moot in view of new grounds of rejection necessitated by the applicant’s amendment. Applicant’s remaining statements regarding the remaining independent and dependent claims are moot or not persuasive for the reasons stated above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 8, 10 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over screen captures from YouTube video clip entitled "Introducing Blackout 4.5: Enabling Character and Partial-Scope Redactions" 2 pages, uploaded November 22, 2022 by user "Milyli." Retrieved from the internet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWcrOlSiOI0, in view of Ahuja, Patent Application Publication number US 20240242294 A1 (hereinafter “Ahuja”).
Claim 1: Milyli teaches “A computer-implemented method for redacting sensitive information within a spreadsheet document, the method comprising:
receiving a spreadsheet document containing a plurality of cells (Milyli Fig. 1 shows a project loading screen loading the spreadsheet “Edit Spreadsheet Markup Project” (note the spreadsheet icon to the left of the spreadsheet name). Milyli Fig. 2 shows a spreadsheet document. Milyli Fig. 2 shows file “Account.Overcharge.Excel.xlsx” in the title bar);
providing, through a user interface, tools for selecting a text fragment within a selected cell of the spreadsheet document (Milyli Fig. 1 shows text fields that select “email except domain” and “SSN except last 4,” which searches for and selects the text fragments for redaction in each cell. Each cell is at least momentarily selected as Milyli searches for, and replaces the text fragments in each cell);
applying a redaction to the selected text fragment within the cell, wherein remaining content within the selected cell (Milyli Fig. 2 shows partial redactions of cells in the SSN and Email columns, while last 4 of SSN and domain portion of email remain unredacted) and the file format of the spreadsheet document are unaffected by the redaction (Milyli Fig. 3-9 shows the narration text “Blackout administrators can now configure image and spreadsheet projects to partially redact words and phrases like email addresses, social security numbers, and phone numbers. Image and Excel projects now include a character scope option…” Milyli Fig 10 has a “character” option under the “scope” dropdown, thus indicating Fig. 1 is an excel project. Milyli Fig. 2 shows file “Account.Overcharge.Excel.xlsx” in the title bar so after the redaction, it is still an excel document. Thus, the file format has been maintained); and…”
Milyli is silent regarding “converting the spreadsheet document into an output format, the output format incorporating the redaction in such a way that the redaction is non-reversible.”
Ahuja teaches “converting the spreadsheet document into an output format, the output format incorporating the redaction in such a way that the redaction is non-reversible (i.e. the instructions may convert… from one data format to another format preferred by the distributed ledger. For example, the transactions may be received in a spreadsheet format, and then converted to a pdf format [0048 Ahuja]).”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention/combination of Milyli to include the feature of having the ability to convert a document to PDF as disclosed by Ahuja.
One would have been motivated to do so, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit to prevent redactions from being reversed, and to prevent unauthorized editing of the document, and to convert documents into more universally accessible file types (e.g. a client device might not have excel to view the spreadsheet, but may have a PDF viewer).
Claim 2: Milyli and Ahuja teach all the limitations of claim 1, above. Milyli teaches “wherein the redaction obscures the selected text fragment while retaining a visual marker to indicate a presence of redacted content (Milyli Fig. 2 shows partially redacted cells, such as “[REDACTED]8882” for SSN and “[REDACTED]@ipsum.com” for Email).”
Claim 8: Milyli and Ahuja teach all the limitations of claim 1, above. Ahuja teaches “wherein the output format is a PDF file (i.e. the instructions may convert… from one data format to another format preferred by the distributed ledger. For example, the transactions may be received in a spreadsheet format, and then converted to a pdf format [0048 Ahuja]).” Milyli teaches “the text fragment includes the sensitive information (Milyli Fig. 2 shows partial redactions of cells in the SSN and Email columns, while last 4 of SSN and domain portion of email remain unredacted).”
One would have been motivated to combine Milyli and Ahuja, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit to prevent sensitive information from being seen, and to prevent redactions from being reversed, and to prevent unauthorized editing of the document and to convert documents into more universally accessible file types (e.g. a client device might not have excel to view the spreadsheet, but may have a PDF viewer).
Claim 10: Milyli and Ahuja teach a system for redacting sensitive information within a spreadsheet document, comprising: one or more processors; non-transitory computer-readable storage; and computer-executable instructions stored on the non-transitory computer-readable storage (i.e. a processor or processors, and a non-transitory memory configured to store executable data configured to run on the processor [Ahuja 0039]), that when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to perform operations corresponding to the method of claim 1; therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 21: Milyli and Ahuja teach(es) all the limitations of claim 1, above. Milyli teaches “wherein during the step of applying a redaction to the selected text fragment within the cell, a file extension of the spreadsheet document remains unchanged (Milyli Fig. 3-9 shows the narration text “Blackout administrators can now configure image and spreadsheet projects to partially redact words and phrases like email addresses, social security numbers, and phone numbers. Image and Excel projects now include a character scope option…” Milyli Fig 10 has a “character” option under the “scope” dropdown, thus indicating Fig. 1 is an excel project. Milyli Fig. 2 shows file “Account.Overcharge.Excel.xlsx” in the title bar so after the redaction, it is still an excel document. Thus, the file format has been maintained).”
Claims 3 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Milyli, in view of Ahuja, in view of McCloskey et al., Patent Number US 11250876 B1 (hereinafter “McCloskey”).
Claim 3: Milyli and Ahuja teach all the limitations of claim 2, above. Milyli and Ahuja are silent regarding “wherein the applying further comprises: replacing the selected text fragment with delimiters that maintain a structural integrity of the cell; and processing the delimiters when generating the output format, wherein the delimiters guide application of a visual redaction element.”
McCloskey teaches “wherein the applying further comprises:
replacing the selected text fragment with delimiters (i.e. replaces each word with a descriptor, such that in the above example, the processed sentence reads, “This is [[First Name]] [[Last Name]], my social security number is [[Social Security Number]].”… By using a unique delimiter around the replaced words, such as double brackets [McCloskey Col 7 lines 13-24, Fig. 3) that maintain a structural integrity of the cell (Examiner interprets this limitation as intended use); and
processing the delimiters when generating the output format, wherein the delimiters guide application of a visual redaction element (i.e. the anonymization, redaction and de-identification service 116 operates in a mode that redacts on a word-by-word basis and replaces each word with a descriptor, such that in the above example, the processed sentence reads, “This is [[First Name]] [[Last Name]], my social security number is [[Social Security Number]].” The latter mode is useful for a human reading the redacted text, in that the context of the removed text is provided. By using a unique delimiter around the replaced words, such as double brackets, a subsequent processing service (not depicted) can easily apply styling (e.g., bolding, highlighting, hyperlinking, etc.) to the modified text [McCloskey Col 7 lines 13-24, Fig. 3).”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention/combination of Milyli and Ahuja to include the feature of having the ability to replace text as disclosed by McCloskey.
One would have been motivated to do so, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit of obscuring sensitive information, and still providing the context of the redaction to the user.
Claim 7: Milyli and Ahuja teach all the limitations of claim 1, above. Milyli and Ahuja are silent regarding “further comprising receiving a reason associated with the redaction and embedding the reason into the output format.”
McCloskey teaches “further comprising receiving a reason associated with the redaction and embedding the reason into the output format (i.e. replaces each word with a descriptor, such that in the above example, the processed sentence reads, “This is [[First Name]] [[Last Name]], my social security number is [[Social Security Number]].”… By using a unique delimiter around the replaced words, such as double brackets [McCloskey Col 7 lines 13-24, Fig. 3] note: user chooses to use the redaction system as configured, so the reason is indicated by the user).”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention/combination of Milyli and Ahuja to include the feature of having the ability to replace text as disclosed by McCloskey.
One would have been motivated to do so, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit of obscuring sensitive information, and still providing the context of the redaction to the user.
Claims 4-6, 9, 11, and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Milyli, in view of Ahuja, in view of Bellert, Patent Application Publication number US 20160224800 A1 (hereinafter “Bellert”).
Claim 4: Milyli and Ahuja teach all the limitations of claim 1, above. Milyli and Ahuja are silent regarding “further comprising:
defining a bounding box associated with the selected text fragment, the bounding box including a start character of the bounding box and an end character of the bounding box; and processing the bounding box when generating the output format, including generating a redaction element in the output format based on the start character and the end character.”
Bellert teaches “further comprising:
defining a bounding box associated with the selected text fragment, the bounding box including a start character of the bounding box and an end character of the bounding box (i.e. a text box that displays sensitive data items: a social security number and an annual salary [Bellert 0044, Fig. 4-5]… the user highlights “123-45-6789” and “$1,000,000” to specify an instance of a sensitive data item [Bellert 0046]); and
processing the bounding box when generating the output format, including generating a redaction element in the output format based on the start character and the end character (i.e. black rectangles replace the now-removed instances of sensitive data items. Moreover, when rendered, these black rectangles will occupy approximately the same amount of space within the rendered ED as the sensitive data items. FIG. 5 shows the displayed redacted ED (504) [Bellert 0047, Fig. 4-5]).”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention/combination of Milyli and Ahuja to include the feature of having the ability to determine a start and end point to redactions as disclosed by Bellert.
One would have been motivated to do so, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit to specifically indicate where redactions begin and end, which more clearly assists the user in making redactions, which reduces user error.
Claim 5: Milyli and Ahuja and Bellert teach all the limitations of claim 4, above. Bellert teaches “wherein the selected text fragment is a plurality of selected text fragments each having an associated bounding box (i.e. a text box that displays sensitive data items: a social security number and an annual salary [Bellert 0044, Fig. 4-5]… the user highlights “123-45-6789” and “$1,000,000” to specify an instance of a sensitive data item [Bellert 0046]), wherein generating the redaction element in the output format comprises generating a redaction element for each selected text fragment based on the start character and the end character of the associated bounding box (i.e. black rectangles replace the now-removed instances of sensitive data items. Moreover, when rendered, these black rectangles will occupy approximately the same amount of space within the rendered ED as the sensitive data items. FIG. 5 shows the displayed redacted ED (504) [Bellert 0047, Fig. 4-5]).”
One would have been motivated to combine Milyli and Ahuja and Bellert, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit to specifically indicate where redactions begin and end, which more clearly assists the user in making redactions, which reduces user error.
Claim 6: Milyli and Ahuja teach all the limitations of claim 1, above. Milyli and Ahuja are silent regarding “further comprising providing a selection of redaction types, the selection including at least one of: a solid redaction type and a translucent redaction type.”
Bellert teaches “further comprising providing a selection of redaction types, the selection including at least one of: a solid redaction type (i.e. black rectangles replace the now-removed instances of sensitive data items. Moreover, when rendered, these black rectangles will occupy approximately the same amount of space within the rendered ED as the sensitive data items. FIG. 5 shows the displayed redacted ED (504) [Bellert 0047, Fig. 4-5]) and a translucent redaction type (Bellert Fig. 4 shows translucent bounding boxes).”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention/combination of Milyli and Ahuja to include the feature of having the ability to have both a transparent box and an opaque box as disclosed by Bellert.
One would have been motivated to do so, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit to see what will be redacted before it is obscured.
Claim 9: Milyli and Ahuja teach all the limitations of claim 1, above. Milyli and Ahuja are silent regarding “wherein the redaction is applied in response to user selection of the text fragment through one of the following user interface actions: highlighting the text fragment; right-clicking the text fragment and selecting a redaction option from a context menu; applying a keyboard shortcut associated with a redaction type.”
Bellert teaches “wherein the redaction is applied in response to user selection of the text fragment through one of the following user interface actions:
highlighting the text fragment (i.e. the user highlights “123-45-6789” and “$1,000,000” to specify an instance of a sensitive data item [Bellert 0046]… black rectangles replace the now-removed instances of sensitive data items [Bellert 0047, Fig. 4-5]);
right-clicking the text fragment and selecting a redaction option from a context menu;
applying a keyboard shortcut associated with a redaction type.”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention/combination of Milyli and Ahuja to include the feature of having the ability to select redacted sections as disclosed by Bellert.
One would have been motivated to do so, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit to specifically indicate where redactions begin and end, which more clearly assists the user in making redactions, which reduces user error.
Claim 11: Milyli and Ahuja teach all the limitations of claim 10, above. Milyli and Ahuja are silent regarding “wherein the instructions further cause the system to provide a translucent redaction overlay, enabling visibility of the redacted text fragment while indicating presence of redaction.”
Bellert teaches “wherein the instructions further cause the system to provide a translucent redaction overlay, enabling visibility of the redacted text fragment while indicating presence of redaction (i.e. a text box that displays sensitive data items: a social security number and an annual salary [Bellert 0044, Fig. 4-5]… the user highlights “123-45-6789” and “$1,000,000” to specify an instance of a sensitive data item [Bellert 0046] note: transparent bounding box in Fig. 4)”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention/combination of Milyli and Ahuja to include the feature of having the ability to select redacted sections as disclosed by Bellert.
One would have been motivated to do so, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit to specifically indicate where redactions begin and end, which more clearly assists the user in making redactions, which reduces user error.
Claim 15: Milyli and Ahuja teach all the limitations of claim 11, above. Milyli and Ahuja are silent regarding “wherein the instructions further cause the system to:
define a bounding box associated with the selected text fragment, the bounding box including a start character of the bounding box and an end character of the bounding box; and process the bounding box when generating the output format including generating a redaction element in the output format based on the start character and the end character.”
Bellert teaches “wherein the instructions further cause the system to:
define a bounding box associated with the selected text fragment, the bounding box including a start character of the bounding box and an end character of the bounding box (i.e. a text box that displays sensitive data items: a social security number and an annual salary [Bellert 0044, Fig. 4-5]… the user highlights “123-45-6789” and “$1,000,000” to specify an instance of a sensitive data item [Bellert 0046]); and
process the bounding box when generating the output format including generating a redaction element in the output format based on the start character and the end character (i.e. black rectangles replace the now-removed instances of sensitive data items. Moreover, when rendered, these black rectangles will occupy approximately the same amount of space within the rendered ED as the sensitive data items. FIG. 5 shows the displayed redacted ED (504) [Bellert 0047, Fig. 4-5]).”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention/combination of Milyli and Ahuja to include the feature of having the ability to determine a start and end point to redactions as disclosed by Bellert.
One would have been motivated to do so, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit to specifically indicate where redactions begin and end, which more clearly assists the user in making redactions, which reduces user error.
Claim 16: Milyli and Ahuja and Bellert teach all the limitations of claim 15, above. Bellert teaches “wherein the selected text fragment is a plurality of selected text fragments each having an associated bounding box (i.e. a text box that displays sensitive data items: a social security number and an annual salary [Bellert 0044, Fig. 4-5]… the user highlights “123-45-6789” and “$1,000,000” to specify an instance of a sensitive data item [Bellert 0046]), wherein the instructions further cause the system to generate a redaction element for each selected text fragment based on the start character and the end character of the associated bounding box (i.e. black rectangles replace the now-removed instances of sensitive data items. Moreover, when rendered, these black rectangles will occupy approximately the same amount of space within the rendered ED as the sensitive data items. FIG. 5 shows the displayed redacted ED (504) [Bellert 0047, Fig. 4-5]).”
One would have been motivated to combine Milyli and Ahuja and Bellert, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit to specifically indicate where redactions begin and end, which more clearly assists the user in making redactions, which reduces user error.
Claims 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Milyli, in view of Ahuja, in view of Bellert, in view of McCloskey.
Claim 12: Milyli and Ahuja and Bellert teach all the limitations of claim 11, above. Milyli and Ahuja and Bellert are silent regarding “wherein the instructions further cause the system to replace the selected text fragment with delimiters and to process the delimiters during output file generation to guide application of the redaction.”
McCloskey teaches “wherein the instructions further cause the system to replace the selected text fragment with delimiters and to process the delimiters during output file generation to guide application of the redaction (i.e. the anonymization, redaction and de-identification service 116 operates in a mode that redacts on a word-by-word basis and replaces each word with a descriptor, such that in the above example, the processed sentence reads, “This is [[First Name]] [[Last Name]], my social security number is [[Social Security Number]].” The latter mode is useful for a human reading the redacted text, in that the context of the removed text is provided. By using a unique delimiter around the replaced words, such as double brackets, a subsequent processing service (not depicted) can easily apply styling (e.g., bolding, highlighting, hyperlinking, etc.) to the modified text [McCloskey Col 7 lines 13-24, Fig. 3).”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention/combination of Milyli and Ahuja and Bellert to include the feature of having the ability to replace text as disclosed by McCloskey.
One would have been motivated to do so, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit of obscuring sensitive information, and still providing the context of the redaction to the user.
Claim 13: Milyli and Ahuja and Bellert and McCloskey teach all the limitations of claim 12, above. Bellert teaches “further comprising a component that allows the user to select between a solid redaction type (i.e. black rectangles replace the now-removed instances of sensitive data items. Moreover, when rendered, these black rectangles will occupy approximately the same amount of space within the rendered ED as the sensitive data items. FIG. 5 shows the displayed redacted ED (504) [Bellert 0047, Fig. 4-5]) and a translucent redaction type (Bellert Fig. 4 shows translucent bounding boxes).”
One would have been motivated to combine Milyli and Ahuja and Bellert and McCloskey, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit to see what will be redacted before it is obscured.
Claim 14: Milyli and Ahuja and Bellert and McCloskey teach all the limitations of claim 13, above. McCloskey teaches “wherein the instructions further cause the system to receive and store a redaction reason indicated by the user, the reason being associated with the embedded redaction in the output file (i.e. replaces each word with a descriptor, such that in the above example, the processed sentence reads, “This is [[First Name]] [[Last Name]], my social security number is [[Social Security Number]].”… By using a unique delimiter around the replaced words, such as double brackets [McCloskey Col 7 lines 13-24, Fig. 3] note: user chooses to use the redaction system as configured, so the reason is indicated by the user).”
One would have been motivated to combine Milyli and Ahuja and Bellert and McCloskey, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit of obscuring sensitive information, and still providing the context of the redaction to the user.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Horesh (US 20210133280 A1) listed on 892 is related to form field detection and completion, specifically converting spreadsheet formats into image and PDF formats.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL SHEN whose telephone number is (469)295-9169 and email address is samuel.shen@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 7:00 am - 5:00 pm CT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Fred Ehichioya can be reached on (571) 272-4034. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2179
/IRETE F EHICHIOYA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2179
Prosecution Insights