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 .
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/8/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/8/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s remarks, Applicant mainly argues that the prior art of record does not explicitly disclose, teach, or suggest, inter alia, “modifying the target information within the text snippet,” “returning the extracted text snippet containing the modified target information to the file in real time,” ”updating, in memory and without persisting the file to non-transitory storage, the component at the identified location with the modified target information” and “reassembling, from the updated component and one or more cached unmodified component, an output file in the same file type as received.” Specifically, Applicant argues that Levay teaches extraction and redaction involving pages of documents instead of text snippet that is extracted from a file, and Levay is silent regarding updating, in memory and without persisting the file to non-transitory storage, the component at the identified location with the modified target information and reassembling an output file in the same file type as received. Applicant further argues that Shmuckler suffers similar deficiency as it discloses extracting textual snippets from a document for one or more training datasets utilized for training a Language model.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
As indicated in previous office action, Levay is relied upon for redacting portions of a document containing sensitive information while Shmuckler is relied upon for extraction of text snippets to allow identification of personal or sensitive data.
Based on broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification, text snippet is a portion of section of a document that is tagged or identified for redaction. Levay discloses tagging specific portions of the document for redaction, which corresponds to extraction of text snippets for redaction or modification (Levay: [0081]-[0083]: tag portions identified for redaction…redaction implementer replaces the portions identified for redaction), and redaction process is performed in real-time using container to process data prior to persisting in storage (Levay: [0004]: real-time processing using redaction container; [0100]: storing content in a cache, displaying the cached content in container, which corresponds to redaction without storing or persisting in permanent storage). Although Levay does not expressly recite extracting text snippet, Shmuckler is relied upon for the process of extracting text snippet for sensitive/personal data analysis (Shmuckler: Figs. 1A; col. 1 lines 24-38: extract textual snippets to detect PII; col. 17 line 51 – col. 18 line 8: perform redaction or hiding or replacement of PII data-items). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Shmuckler within the system of Levay to identify portions of documents that require modification/redaction using text snippet because they are in the same field of endeavor of tagging and identifying document for redaction. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive in light of above explanation.
On the other hand, Cottrille U.S. 2009/0164878, discloses method of redacting portions of document in real time without altering structure of the file. Although not relied upon, Cottrille discloses well-known practice of dynamically redacting data prior to displaying or storage.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levay et al. U.S. 2024/0354433 (hereinafter Levay) in view of Shmukler et al. U.S. 12,197,483 (hereinafter Shmukler).
As per claim 1, 11 and 17, Levay discloses a system/method/CRM, comprising: a processor; a memory including instructions, which when executed, cause the processor to perform operations including:
receiving a file that has not yet been stored (Levay: [0005] and [0035]: receive file user that uploaded a file; [0100]: process cached file in container);
categorizing contents of the file into one or more components (Levay: [0063]-[0067]: determine if the documents has any text and requires processing using OCR service to convert into text to allow extraction of pages);
extracting a machine-readable arrangement from the one or more components (Levay: [0005]; [0035]: extract pages from the file and identify specific field or format for redaction);
detecting target information from the machine-readable arrangement (Levay: [0005]; [0035]: detect confidential data using pattern matching algorithms);
generating position information that identifies, within a component of the file, a location of the target information (Levay: [0081]-[0083]: identify portions of the document for redaction, the identified information marker tags the specific portion of the document, e.g. page coordinate);
modifying the target information (Levay: [0005]: redaction process to generate redacted pages);
updating, in memory and without persisting the file to non-transitory storage, the component at the identified location with the modified target information (Levay: [0083]: redaction implementer replaces the portions identified for redaction by the type of redaction that is specified; [0004]: the redaction is performed in real time);
reassembling, from the updated component and one or more cached unmodified component, an output file in the same file type as received (Levay: [0084]: output and save the redacted document in the same format); and
assembling an output file including the modified target information to the file in real-time (Levay: [0005]: provide the redacted pages for transmission or storage; [0062]: the redaction is provided...to the user in real-time through the user interface).
Levay discloses auto-detect specific fields or format in a file to identify target information (Levay: [0035]). Levay does not explicitly disclose detecting target information via a text snippet (i) extracted from the file and (ii) containing the target information, modifying the target information within the text snippet; and returning the extracted text snippet containing the modified target information to the file in real time. However, Shmukler discloses extracting a textual snippet from a particular document, wherein the textual snippets surrounds PII data-item; detecting PII data-items in documents using various matching algorithms; and redact or modify the detected PII data (Shmukler: Figs. 1A; col. 1 lines 24-38: extract textual snippets to detect PII; col. 17 line 51 – col. 18 line 8: perform redaction or hiding or replacement of PII data-items). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to detect target information by extracting text snippets in documents to identify or detect PII information because use of text snippets for customized/personalized data entry is well known in the art.
As per claim 2, 12 and 18, Levay discloses the limitations of claims 1, 11 and 17 respectively. Levay further discloses wherein the operations further include detecting a file type of the file (Levay: [0099]-[0101]: receive various file types and detect file type and associate file type with a container specific to the file type).
As per claim 3, Levay discloses the system of claim 1. Levay further discloses wherein detecting the target information includes executing, by the processor, an optical characterization (OCR) module (Levay: [0035] and [0103]: OCR process to detect and identify target information).
As per claim 4, 13 and 19, Levay discloses the limitations of claims 1, 11 and 17 respectively. Levay further discloses wherein detecting the target information includes executing, by the processor, an artificial intelligence (AI)-based module (Levay: [0004]; [0035]).
As per claim 5, 14 and 20, Levay discloses the limitations of claims 4, 13 and 18 respectively. Levay further discloses wherein the AI-based module is a large language model (LLM) (Levay: [0035]).
As per claim 6, Levay discloses the system of claim 1. Levay further discloses wherein the operations further include obstructing a portion of a text component in the target information (Levay: [0080]: redact text associated with specific formatted fields).
As per claim 7, Levay discloses the system of claim 1. Levay further discloses wherein the operations further including obstructing a portion of an image component in the target information (Levay: [0104]-[0105]: obscuring image containing sensitive information).
As per claim 8, Levay discloses the system of claim 1. Levay further discloses wherein the target information is personally identifiable information (PII) (Levay: [0104]-[0105]).
As per claim 9, Levay discloses the system of claim 1. Levay further discloses wherein the operations further include returning position information (Levay: [0104]-[0106]).
As per claim 10, Levay discloses the system of claim 9. Levay further discloses returning a position of the target information in the file (Levay: [0104]-[0106]: return location of the target information).
As per claim 15, Levay disclose the method of claim 11. Levay further discloses the machine-readable arrangement includes at least one of a picture and a portion of text (Levay: [0088]; [0099]; [0104]-[0105]: various types of file).
As per claim 16, Levay discloses the method of claim 11. Levay further discloses obstructing a portion of the machine-readable arrangement (Levay: [0104]-[0105]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sahu et al. U.S. 12,499,267 discloses method for redacting document containing sensitive information prior to storage or distribution.
Madhavan et al. U.S. 2024/0095394 discloses method for privacy preserving before data is stored, processed used or transmitted.
Cottrille U.S. 2009/0164878 discloses selective document redaction that dynamically redact those sensitive portions of document identified by tags without otherwise altering the structure of the document.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIN HON (ERIC) CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3789. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 9am- 7pm.
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, Lynn Feild can be reached at 571-272-2092. 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.
/SHIN-HON (ERIC) CHEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2431
Prosecution Insights