CTNF 18/933,476 CTNF 80424 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Specification 07-29 AIA The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The specification should be updated to reflect the current status of all co-pending applications . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cumby et al., “A Machine Learning Based System for Semi-Automatically Redacting Documents.” Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 11 August 2011, 25(2), 1628-1635, in view of Thayer et al. (US 2018/0285591) . In regard to claim 1, Cumby disclosed: … determining, by the first computer system, a first expression…, wherein the first expression defines a first search pattern; Cumby, p. 1630, Redaction System. modifying, by the first computer system, the transcript text into a first redacted transcript text, by redacting one or more instances of the first search pattern from the transcript text; and Cumby, p. 1630, Redaction System. Cumby failed to disclose: receiving, by a first computer system, a transcript text; determining a confidence level associated with one or more text strings in the transcript text; determining, by the first computer system, a first expression based on the confidence level… … transmitting the first redacted transcript text from the first computer system, via a transmission network, to a second computer system. However, Thayer disclosed: receiving, by a first computer system, a transcript text; Thayer [0020] determining a confidence level associated with one or more text strings in the transcript text; Thayer [0037] determining, by the first computer system, a first expression based on the confidence level… Thayer [0037] … transmitting the first redacted transcript text from the first computer system, via a transmission network, to a second computer system. Thayer [0025] It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to receive documents to be redacted as in Thayer by a redaction system as taught in both Thayer and Cumby, and then transmit the redacted documents from the redaction system as in Thayer, in order to allow for remote redaction of documents. In regard to claim 2, Cumby disclosed: determining a security characteristic associated with the destination computer system, wherein determining the first expression is further based on the security characteristic associated with the destination computer system. Cumby, p. 1630, Redaction System In regard to claim 3, Cumby disclosed: determining a first portion of the transcript text associated with a first speaker; Cumby, p. 1630, Redaction System determining a second portion of the transcript text associated with a second speaker; and Cumby, p. 1630, Redaction System determining a second expression associated with the second speaker, wherein the second expression defines a second search pattern different from the first search pattern, Cumby, p. 1630, Redaction System wherein modifying the transcript text comprises: modifying at least one instance of the first search pattern from the first portion of the transcript text; and Cumby, p. 1630, Redaction System modifying at least one instance of the second search pattern from the second portion of the transcript text. Cumby, p. 1630, Redaction System In regard to claim 4, Cumby disclosed: determining a second expression based on the first redacted transcript text, wherein the second expression defines a second search pattern; and Cumby, p. 1630, Redaction System modifying the first redacted transcript text into a second redacted transcript text, by redacting one or more instances of the second search pattern from the first redacted transcript text. Cumby, p. 1630, Redaction System In regard to claim 5, Cumby disclosed: retrieving the first expression from a library of expressions; and Cumby, p. 1630, Redaction System modifying the first expression based on one or more attributes of the destination computer system or the transmission network. Cumby, p. 1630, Redaction System In regard to claim 6, Cumby disclosed: determining, by the first computer system, a semantic category associated with the transcript text, Cumby, p. 1630, Redaction System wherein determining the first expression is further based on the semantic category. Cumby, p. 1630, Redaction System In regard to claim 7, Thayer disclosed prior to modifying the transcript text: determining a first text word in the transcript text representing a number; Thayer [0037], convert n numbers of a zip code determining a first confidence level associated with the first text word; and Thayer [0037], sensitivity level converting the first text word to the number; based on the first confidence level. Thayer [0037] In regard to claim 8, Thayer disclosed wherein modifying the transcript text comprises: determining a first text string in the transcript text corresponding to a numeric value; and Thayer [0037], convert n numbers of a zip code converting the first text string to a number, based at least in part on determining that the confidence level meets or exceeds a confidence threshold. Thayer [0037] In regard to claim 9, Cumby disclosed: one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: … determining a security characteristic associated with at least one of a second computer system or a transmission network associated with the second computer system; Cumby, p. 1630, Redaction System determining, by the computer system, a first expression based on the security characteristic, wherein the first expression defines a first search pattern; Cumby, p. 1630, Redaction System modifying, by the computer system, the transcript text into a first redacted transcript text by redacting one or more instances of the first search pattern from the transcript text; and Cumby, p. 1630, Redaction System … Cumby failed to disclose: receiving, by the computer system, a transcript text; … transmitting the first redacted transcript text from the computer system, via the transmission network, to the second computer system. However, Thayer disclosed: receiving, by the computer system, a transcript text; Thayer [0020] … transmitting the first redacted transcript text from the computer system, via the transmission network, to the second computer system. Thayer [0025] It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to receive documents to be redacted as in Thayer by a redaction system as taught in both Thayer and Cumby, and then transmit the redacted documents from the redaction system as in Thayer, in order to allow for remote redaction of documents. In regard to claim 10, Thayer further disclosed: determining a confidence level associated with the transcript text, wherein determining the first expression is further based on the confidence level. Thayer [0037] Claim 11 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 3. Claim 12 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 4. Claim 13 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 5. Claim 14 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 6. Claim 15 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 7. In regard to claim 16, Thayer further disclosed wherein modifying the transcript text comprises: determining a confidence level associated with the transcript text; Thayer [0037] determining a first text string in the transcript text corresponding to a numeric value; and Thayer [0037], convert n numbers of a zip code converting the first text string to a number, based at least in part on determining that the confidence level meets or exceeds a confidence threshold. Thayer [0037] In regard to claim 17, Cumby disclosed: … determining a first portion of the transcript text associated with a first speaker; Cumby, p. 1630, Redaction System determining a second portion of the transcript text associated with a second speaker; Cumby, p. 1630, Redaction System determining, by the computer system, a first expression associated with the first speaker, wherein the first expression defines a first search pattern; Cumby, p. 1630, Redaction System determining, by the computer system, a second expression associated with the second speaker, wherein the second expression defines a second search pattern different from the first search pattern; Cumby, p. 1630, Redaction System modifying, by the computer system, the transcript text into a first redacted transcript text, Cumby, p. 1630, Redaction System wherein modifying the transcript text comprises: modifying at least one instance of the first search pattern from the first portion of the transcript text; and Cumby, p. 1630, Redaction System modifying at least one instance of the second search pattern from the second portion of the transcript text; and Cumby, p. 1630, Redaction System … Cumby failed to disclose: receiving, by a computer system, a transcript text; … transmitting the first redacted transcript text from the computer system, via a transmission network, to a destination system. However, Thayer disclosed: receiving, by the computer system, a transcript text; Thayer [0020] … transmitting the first redacted transcript text from the computer system, via the transmission network, to the second computer system. Thayer [0025] It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to receive documents to be redacted as in Thayer by a redaction system as taught in both Thayer and Cumby, and then transmit the redacted documents from the redaction system as in Thayer, in order to allow for remote redaction of documents. In regard to claim 18, Thayer further disclosed: determining a confidence level associated with the transcript text, wherein determining the first expression and determining the second expression is further based on the confidence level. Thayer [0037] Claim 19 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 2. Claim 20 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 6 . Double Patenting 08-33 AIA The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. 08-34 AIA Claim s 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,135,819 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application is a broader recitation of the patented claims. The scope of claim 1 of the instant application anticipates claims 1 and 6 of the ‘819 patent . Claim 1 of U.S. Patent 12,135,819 Claim 1 of instant application A method, comprising: A method, comprising: receiving, by a first computer system, a transcript text; receiving, by a first computer system, a transcript text; Claim 6: determining a confidence level associated with a first text string in the transcript text… determining a confidence level associated with one or more text strings in the transcript text; determining, by the first computer system, a first expression based on the transcript category, wherein the first expression defines a first search pattern; determining, by the first computer system, a first expression based on the confidence level, wherein the first expression defines a first search pattern; modifying, by the first computer system, the transcript text into a first redacted transcript text wherein modifying the transcript text comprises: converting, within the transcript text, a non-numeric text string representing a numeric value, into a numeric text string; and redacting one or more instances of the first search pattern from the transcript text, wherein the one or more instances includes the numeric text string; and modifying, by the first computer system, the transcript text into a first redacted transcript text by redacting one or more instances of the first search pattern from the transcript text; and transmitting the first redacted transcript text from the first computer system, via a transmission network, to a second computer system. transmitting the first redacted transcript text from the first computer system, via a transmission network, to a destination computer system. The confidence level referenced in the instant application (determining a confidence level associated with one or more text strings in the transcript text) is present in claims 5 and 6 of the ‘819 patent . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. T. A. Faruquie, S. Negi and L. V. Subramaniam, "Protecting Sensitive Customer Information in Call Center Recordings," 2009 IEEE International Conference on Services Computing , Bangalore, India, 2009, pp. 81-88. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeffrey R. Swearingen whose telephone number is (571)272-3921. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm. 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, Oscar Louie can be reached at 571-270-1684. 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. Jeffrey R. Swearingen Primary Examiner Art Unit 2445 /Jeffrey R Swearingen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445 Application/Control Number: 18/933,476 Page 2 Art Unit: 2445 Application/Control Number: 18/933,476 Page 3 Art Unit: 2445 Application/Control Number: 18/933,476 Page 4 Art Unit: 2445 Application/Control Number: 18/933,476 Page 5 Art Unit: 2445 Application/Control Number: 18/933,476 Page 6 Art Unit: 2445 Application/Control Number: 18/933,476 Page 7 Art Unit: 2445 Application/Control Number: 18/933,476 Page 8 Art Unit: 2445 Application/Control Number: 18/933,476 Page 9 Art Unit: 2445 Application/Control Number: 18/933,476 Page 10 Art Unit: 2445 Application/Control Number: 18/933,476 Page 11 Art Unit: 2445 Application/Control Number: 18/933,476 Page 12 Art Unit: 2445 Application/Control Number: 18/933,476 Page 13 Art Unit: 2445 Application/Control Number: 18/933,476 Page 14 Art Unit: 2445 Application/Control Number: 18/933,476 Page 15 Art Unit: 2445 Application/Control Number: 18/933,476 Page 16 Art Unit: 2445 Application/Control Number: 18/933,476 Page 17 Art Unit: 2445 Application/Control Number: 18/933,476 Page 18 Art Unit: 2445 Application/Control Number: 18/933,476 Page 19 Art Unit: 2445
Prosecution Insights