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 .
The following is a final office action in response to communications received 05/13/2026. Claims 1-7, 10-20 have been amended. Therefore, claims 1-20 are pending and addressed below.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments and response to the claims are NOT sufficient to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejections as set forth in the previous office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 05/13/2026 have been fully considered. In regards to prior art(s), in light of amendments filed on 05/13/2026, Examiner withdraws the prior art(s) rejections. However Examiner maintains the 35 USC 101 rejection.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s remark in regards to 35 USC 101 rejections. Examiner notes, that during the interview on 05/12/2026, no discussion was made in regards to 35 USC 101 rejection. Examiner has documented the discussion summary in the Interview summary issued on 05/12/2026. Also Examiner acknowledges the portion of the rejection being irrelevant because of using “template”, however, that portion would be only be filled with limitations of the claim as was mentioned already in the rejection. Examiner already cited the following in the rejection issued on 04/02/2026:
accessing an input text;
identifying, by one or more redaction components, personal identifying information (PII) mentions in the input text to be redacted;
replacing, by a placeholder manager, each unique PII string of a final set of PII mentions with a non-PII string to generate redacted text, the non-PII string being generated by the placeholder manager;
generating and maintaining, by the placeholder manager, a mapping dictionary that maps each unique PII string to the non-PII string that replaces it, the mapping dictionary being used to reinsert one or more unique PII strings after processing of the redacted text; and
transmitting the redacted text to a downstream component for the processing (Mental processes -observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)
.
The claims fall under abstract idea and therefore are rejected under 35 USC 101 rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 12, 20 recite in part process steps which, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are a series of mental processes including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process or a mathematical concept but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Process" grouping of abstract ideas. The claims recite in part:
accessing an input text;
identifying, by one or more redaction components, personal identifying information (PII) mentions in the input text to be redacted;
replacing, by a placeholder manager, each unique PII string of a final set of PII mentions with a non-PII string to generate redacted text, the non-PII string being generated by the placeholder manager;
generating and maintaining, by the placeholder manager, a mapping dictionary that maps each unique PII string to the non-PII string that replaces it, the mapping dictionary being used to reinsert one or more unique PII strings after processing of the redacted text; and
transmitting the redacted text to a downstream component for the processing (Mental processes -observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Under the same rational dependent claims 2-11, 13-19 are also rejected. Therefore claims 1-20 recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites – one or more processors; and memory storing instructions…the processor is recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. As described in MPEP 2106.0S(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, claims 1-20 are directed to a judicial exception.
Claims 1-20 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, accessing an input text; identifying, by one or more redaction components, personal identifying information (PII) mentions in the input text to be redacted; replacing, by a placeholder manager, each unique PII string of a final set of PII mentions with a non-PII string to generate redacted text, the non-PII string being generated by the placeholder manager; generating and maintaining, by the placeholder manager, a mapping dictionary that maps each unique PII string to the non-PII string that replaces it, the mapping dictionary being used to reinsert one or more unique PII strings after processing of the redacted text; and transmitting the redacted text to a downstream component for the processing to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Claims 1-20 are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (see PTO-form 892).
The following Patents and Papers are cited to further show the state of the art at the time of Applicant’s invention with respect to protecting PII…that automates text redaction of PII from text data while maintain a mapping dictionary.
Villax et al (Pub. No. US 2022/0222373); “A Computer System and Method of Operating Same for Handling Anonymous Data”;
-Teaches the data subject's original anonymous identifier may be hashed by the data subject's cryptographic software module in the personal computing device, so that it may be transmitted to data providers in a way which hides the original anonymous identifier…when the data subject installs the personal software application in its personal computing device, the installation process is configured to send the original anonymous identifier to the trusted controller computer server, par.73.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GHAZAL B SHEHNI whose telephone number is (571)270-7479. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5pm PCT.
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, Philip Chea can be reached at 5712723951. 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.
/GHAZAL B SHEHNI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2499
Prosecution Insights