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 .
This communication is in response to Amendment filed on May 15, 2026. Claims 1-4 and 6-14 are pending. Claims 1, 7, 10 and 14 are amended. Claim 5 is cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Referring to the 35 USC 112(b) rejections of claims 1-4 and 6-14, as amended, Applicant’s amendments have been acknowledged however only partially overcome the prior noted deficiencies. Furthermore, Applicant’s amendments raise new 35 USC 112(b) issues, as addressed below.
Referring to the 35 USC 101 rejections of claims 1-4 and 6-12, as amended, Applicant argues that the claims are patent eligible under 101, however Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims have been amended to recite ‘determining a text string after conversion by the conversion process according to a type of the sensitive information’ and wherein ‘the converted text string includes information enabling discrimination of the type of sensitive information’. These limitations are mental steps because a user can convert a sentence containing sensitive information into a different text or symbol by replacing the sensitive information within the string with other text or symbols, e.g. asterisks. Thus, the claimed limitations can be performed by the human mind and are abstract ideas and not patent eligible.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-4 and 6-12, as amended, have been considered but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the conversion process is performed according to the type of the sensitive information) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Referring to claims 1 and 14, Applicant argues that Dande does not teach that ‘the converted text string includes information enabling discrimination of the type of the sensitive information’. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Dande discloses that the template pattern 192 generated by the machine learning module 190 is formed with confidential information types such as port 320, database name 322, hostname 324, DBMS 326 and user 328 and that this example pattern 192 is used as a template to identify and detect similar patterns 192 that include port 320, database name 322, hostname 324, DBMS 326 and user 328 in the task logs 112 [para 102, 105]. Dande further discloses that each cluster of confidential information 180 may be associated with a different pattern 192 and that each cluster may be associated with a different type of confidential information (i.e. port, database name, server name etc.) [para 112] and that the template pattern comprising the confidential information types/words are obfuscated [para 13, 156].
Examiner submits that because Dande teaches that the template pattern is comprised of confidential information words/types and is obfuscated [para 156], and that the template pattern is used as an example template to identify and detect similar patterns 192 that include the obfuscated confidential information types, the template pattern 192 of Dande includes the confidential information that enables discrimination of the types of sensitive (confidential) information in other instances of the template patterns within the task logs [see also para 159]. As such, Examiner maintains that Dande does teach that ‘the converted text string includes information enabling discrimination of the type of the sensitive information’, as amended.
The rejections of all claims depending from the aforenoted claims are also maintained for at least the reasons stated above and further in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendments to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4 and 6-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Referring to claims 1 and 14, the claims recite the limitation “..wherein the converted text string incudes..” in lines 14 of the respective claims. However, it is unclear as to which of the plurality of instances of converted text strings of the log data is being referenced by this limitation- i.e. the converted text string recitation in lines 10-11 of the claims or the ‘a text string after conversion by the conversion process’ in lines 12-13 of the claims. For purposes of examination, Examiner will assume that the plurality of recitations of the converted text strings refer to the same converted text string. Correction is required.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “..for discriminating the text string of the log data” in line 3. However it is unclear as which of the plurality of instances of the text strings of the log data recited in claim 1, from which the claim depends, is being referenced by this limitation. For purposes of examination, Examiner will assume that the limitation reads “..for discriminating a text string of the log data”.
All claims depending from the aforenoted claims are also rejected by virtue of their dependencies.
Due to the 35 USC 112 rejections, the claims have been examined as best understood by the Examiner.
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 1-4 and 6-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 13 and 14 recite:
acquiring log data to be transmitted between apparatuses constituting a blockchain network;
discriminating a text string of the log data;
detecting, as sensitive information, a text string of the log data satisfying at least one of the following conditions: (i) a text string of the log data based on a specific text set as a mark in a pre-setting, and (ii) a text string of the log data that is not discriminated based on a dictionary function or natural language processing; and
performing a conversion process of converting the text string of the sensitive information into a different text or symbol,
wherein a text string is determined after conversion by the conversion process according to a type of the sensitive information, and
wherein the converted text string includes information enabling discrimination of the type of the sensitive information.
Step 1: The claims as a whole fall within one or more statutory categories.
Step 2A prong 1: At least claims 1, 13 and 14 recite limitations that are abstract ideas.
The limitation “discriminating a text string of the log data” is a mental step. One can mentally analyze and discriminate a string of text from a set of data Thus, the claimed limitation can be performed by the human mind.
Furthermore, the limitation “detecting, as sensitive information, a text string of the log data satisfying at least one of the following conditions: (i) a text string of the log data based on a specific text set as a mark in a pre-setting, and (ii) a text string of the log data that is not discriminated based on a dictionary function or natural language processing” is also a mental step. One can visually detect a text string from a set of data as containing sensitive matter based on specific criteria. Thus, the claimed limitation can be performed by the human mind.
The limitation of “performing a conversion process of converting the text string of the sensitive information into a different text or symbol, wherein a text string is determined after conversion by the conversion process according to a type of the sensitive information, and wherein the converted text string includes information enabling discrimination of the type of the sensitive information” is a mental step. A user can convert a sentence containing sensitive information into a different text or symbol by replacing the sensitive information within the string with other text or symbols, e.g. asterisks. Thus, the claimed limitation can be performed by the human mind.
Step 2A prong 2: Claims 1, 13 and 14 recite the limitation “acquiring log data to be transmitted between apparatuses constituting a blockchain network”. This limitation is an additional element and is insignificant extra-solution activity as retrieval/receiving of data (i.e. mere data gathering) such as 'obtaining information' as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not provide integration into a practical application.
Furthermore, Claims 1, 13 and 14 recite the following additional elements “a processor” and “apparatus(es)”, note that these recited additional elements are a high-level recitation of generic computer components to perform the mental process and applied on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application.
Step 2B: the conclusions for the additional elements representing mere implementation using a computer are carried over and do not provide significantly more.
With respect to the "acquiring” limitation is identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above when re-evaluated this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);" and thus remains insignificant extra-solution activity that does not provide significantly more.
Therefore, the claims as a whole do not change this conclusion and the claims are ineligible.
Claims 2-4, 6 and 7 depend from claim 1 and thus include all the limitations of claim 1, therefore claims 2-4, 6 and 7 recite the same abstract idea of "mental process". Claims 2-4, 6 and 7 furthermore recite:
(claim 2) in the log data, detect a text string including the specific text, as the sensitive information;
(claim 3) in the log data, detect a text string sandwiched between the specific text or between a text string including the specific text, as the sensitive information;
(claim 4) use a dictionary function for discriminating the text string of the log data; and detect a text string sandwiched between a text string that is not discriminated based on the dictionary function, as the sensitive information;
(claim 6) in the pre-setting, apply a rule for listing the specific text, a rule for classifying a type of the sensitive information, and a rule for determining a conversion range, to the conversion process; and
(claim 7) in the pre-setting, apply statistical data of a past conversion process for the sensitive information, to the conversion process.
Step 1: Claims 2-4, 6 and 7 as a whole fall within one or more statutory categories.
Step 2A prong 1: Claims 2-4, 6 and 7 recite limitations that are abstract ideas because they depend from claim 1 that recites mental steps.
The limitations of “detecting a text string including the specific text, as the sensitive information”, “detecting a text string sandwiched between the specific text or between a text string including the specific text, as the sensitive information”, and “detecting a text string sandwiched between a text string that is not discriminated, as the sensitive information” are mental steps. One can mentally analyze a set of data to visually detect specific data within as sensitive based on certain criteria. Thus the claimed limitations can be achieved in the human mind.
The limitations of “in the pre-setting, apply a rule for listing the specific text, a rule for classifying a type of the sensitive information, and a rule for determining a conversion range, to the conversion process” and “in the pre-setting, apply statistical data of a past conversion process for the sensitive information, to the conversion process” are mental steps. One can perform a data conversion mentally or using pen and paper based on certain applied criteria or rules. Thus the claimed limitations can be achieved in the human mind.
Step 2A prong 2: Claim 4 recites an additional element of “a processor” and “a dictionary function” for discriminating the text string of the log data. Note that these recited additional elements are a high-level recitation of generic computer hardware and software components to perform the mental process and applied on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application.
Step 2B: the conclusions for the additional elements representing mere implementation using a computer are carried over and do not provide significantly more.
Therefore, the claims as a whole do not change this conclusion and the claims are ineligible.
Claims 8-12 depend from claim 1 and thus include all the limitations of claim 1, therefore claims 8-12 recite the same abstract idea of "mental process". Claims 8-12 furthermore recite:
(claim 8) transmit conversion-processed log data to another apparatus constituting the blockchain network; and
acquire feedback data having an analysis result of the conversion-processed log data from the other apparatus;
(claim 9) receive an update of a detection target of the sensitive information based on the analysis result;
(claim 10) perform the conversion process and transmission for each line of the log data, in response to a command operation by another apparatus constituting the blockchain network;
(claim 11) in a case where the conversion process is performed in response to the command operation, determine a prohibited operation including an acquisition operation of the sensitive information by the other apparatus; and
(claim 12) wherein the prohibited operation includes, in addition to editing and deleting of the text string of the log data, any one of operation for viewing, creating, editing, or deleting a directory that is unrelated to system maintenance.
Step 1: Claims 8-12 as a whole fall within one or more statutory categories.
Step 2A prong 1: Claims 8-12 recite limitations that are abstract ideas because they depend from claim 1 that recites mental steps.
The limitation of “performing the conversion process” step in claim 10 is considered a mental step, as in claim 1 addressed above.
The limitations “in a case where the conversion process is performed in response to the command operation, determine a prohibited operation including an acquisition operation of the sensitive information by the other apparatus” and “wherein the prohibited operation includes, in addition to editing and deleting of the text string of the log data, any one of operation for viewing, creating, editing, or deleting a directory that is unrelated to system maintenance” in claims 11 and 12 are mental steps. A user can mentally select operations depending on a given need. Thus the claimed limitations can be achieved in the human mind.
Step 2A prong 2:
The limitations “acquire feedback data having an analysis result of the conversion-processed log data from the other apparatus” and “receive an update of a detection target of the sensitive information based on the analysis result” in claims 8 and 9 are additional elements and are insignificant extra-solution activity as retrieval/receiving of data (i.e. mere data gathering) such as 'obtaining information' as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and do not provide integration into a practical application.
The limitations “transmit conversion-processed log data to another apparatus constituting the blockchain network” and “transmission for each line of the log data, in response to a command operation by another apparatus constituting the blockchain network” in claims 8 and 10 are also additional elements and are mere outputting of data to another computer recited at a high level of generality and are considered insignificant extra-solution activity as ‘selecting information for output as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and do not provide integration into a practical application.
Furthermore, Claims 8-12 recite the following additional elements “a processor” and “apparatus”, note that these recited additional elements are a high-level recitation of generic computer components to perform the mental process and applied on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application.
Step 2B: the conclusions for the additional elements representing mere implementation using a computer are carried over and do not provide significantly more.
With respect to the “transmitting” and “transmission” limitations identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above when re-evaluated this element are well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);" and thus remains insignificant extra-solution activity that does not provide significantly more.
Therefore, the claims as a whole do not change this conclusion and the claims are ineligible.
To expedite a complete examination of the instant application, the claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 (nonstatutory} above are further rejected as set forth below in anticipation of applicant amending these claims to place them within the four statutory categories of the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, and 6-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US PGPub 2023/0367903 by Dande et al (hereafter Dande).
Referring to claim 1, Dande discloses a confidential information processing apparatus comprising a processor [server 170 comprising processor 172, Fig 1, para 149], wherein the processor is configured to:
acquiring log data to be transmitted between apparatuses constituting a blockchain network [wherein obfuscation engine 188 accesses a task log 104, para 150, Fig 6, element 602; Fig 3; task logs sent from server 170 to third-party vendors 122, para 33; block-chain ledgers 160 in blockchain network 140 are assigned to corresponding third-party vendors 122, para 126, Fig 1];
discriminating a text string of the log data [wherein a portion of the task log 104 such as a line of text, or number of lines and words 332 within the portion of the task log are selected, para 151-152, Fig 6, elements 604-606];
detecting, as sensitive information, a text string of the log data satisfying at least one of the following conditions: (i) a text string of the log data based on a specific text set as a mark in a pre-setting [wherein it is determined that word 332 is among keywords 334 included among the confidential information 180 within the task log 104, para 106, 153, Fig 6, element 608; the training dataset 194 (used by the machine learning module 190 implemented by the obfuscation engine 188) stores the confidential information 180- wherein if a historical task log includes confidential information, the confidential information 180 is marked (indicated as confidential information) (reads on: mark), para 60-62; machine learning model 190 is implemented by a set of rules (reads on: presetting) to identify the confidential information 180, e.g. a rule that indicates if a word is followed by a port number, it is a confidential information 180 etc., para 64], and (ii) a text string of the log data that is not discriminated based on a dictionary function or natural language processing [wherein a word (e.g. a third word 332) is determined to be a neighboring word to the selected word from the task log- a template pattern is generated that includes the selected word 332 and the third word 332 (indicated as confidential information) even if the third word 332 is not among the keywords 334 (in the confidential information 180 stored in training dataset 194), para 155,106; Fig 6, elements 610-612]; and
performing a conversion process of converting the text string of the sensitive information into a different text or symbol [a template pattern 192 is generated that comprises the selected word 332 and neighboring words (third word 332) that are associated with the word and is obfuscated, para 155-156, Fig 6, elements 612-614; the obfuscation of the template pattern 192 is performed by encrypting the words 332 using an encryption function such as SHA or MD5, para 124, 156],
wherein a text string is determined after conversion by the conversion process according to a type of the sensitive information [a pattern 192 that includes confidential information types such as port 320, database name 322, hostname 324 and DBMS 326 and user 328 is used as a template to identify and detect similar patterns 192 that include the confidential information types above in the task logs, para 105, Fig 3], and
wherein the converted text string includes information enabling discrimination of the type of the sensitive information [wherein machine learning module 190 may cluster datapoints 312 of confidential information, and wherein each cluster 316 of the confidential information 180 includes the datapoints 312 of the confidential information 180 that may be associated with a particular pattern 192, and each cluster may be associated with a different type of confidential information 180 (e.g., port, database name, server name, etc.), para 110, 112, Fig 3].
Referring to claim 14, the limitations of the claim are similar to those of claim 1 in the form of a method [Dande, method, Abstract; Fig 6 and corresponding portions of specification]. As such, claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Referring to claim 2, Dande discloses: in the log data, detecting a text string including the specific text, as the sensitive information [a word followed by a port number is considered confidential information, para 64; words such as port, database name, and hostname are confidential information abased on the training dataset, para 104].
Referring to claim 6, Dande discloses that: in the pre-setting, apply a rule for listing the specific text [set of rules to identify confidential information are used in order to include (i.e. list) within a template pattern that is then obfuscated, para 64, obfuscation of template pattern, Fig 6, element 614], a rule for classifying a type of the sensitive information [set of rules to identify confidential information include that if a word is followed by a port number or a date or timestamp (i.e. type), it is confidential information, see also server name as type, para 64], and a rule for determining a conversion range, to the conversion process [set of rules to identify confidential information include that if a word is followed by a port number or a date or timestamp, it is confidential information, para 64].
Referring to claim 7, Dande discloses that: in the pre-setting, apply statistical data of a past conversion process for the sensitive information, to the conversion process [machine learning module determines a probability score 196 of confidentiality for each portion of the task log by extracting features (e.g. vector of numerical values) of the portion of the task log and comparing them with features of previously known confidential information in the training data set, para 119; confidential information is obfuscated, Fig 6, element 608-614].
Referring to claim 8, Dande discloses: transmitting conversion-processed log data to another apparatus constituting the blockchain network [task logs with obfuscated confidential information are sent to third party vendors 122, para 11-12, 31, Fig 1; each blockchain ledger 160 is associated with a particular application 102 associated with a particular vendor 122, para 126]; and acquire feedback data having an analysis result of the conversion-processed log data from the other apparatus [privacy violation detected when a vendor receives and accessed confidential information within a task log associated with another vendor, para 137].
Referring to claim 9, Dande discloses that: in the pre-setting, receive an update of a detection target of the sensitive information based on the analysis result [message to authorities and respective users to initiate investigation of detected anomaly is sent, para 138].
Referring to claim 10, Dande discloses: performing the conversion process and a transmission for each line of the log data, in response to a command operation by another apparatus constituting the blockchain network [anomaly detection engine 198 within server 170 accesses blockchain network 140 and conducts a blockchain transaction 162 on task log 104, the blockchain transaction associated with obfuscating the confidential information, para 163-164, Fig 7, elements 702-704; obfuscation of confidential information performed for all portions of the accessed task log, Fig 6, element 616-618].
Referring to claim 11, Dande discloses that: in a case where the conversion process is performed in response to the command operation, determine a prohibited operation including an acquisition operation of the sensitive information by the other apparatus [anomaly detection engine 198 determines whether the blockchain transaction conducted is an anomaly and unexpected, para 166, Fig 7, element 708].
Referring to claim 12, Dande discloses that the prohibited operation includes, in addition to editing and deleting of the text string of the log data [blockchain transaction 162 includes obtaining the confidential information 180 from the machine learning module, para 127; blockchain ledger 160 with blockchain transactions updated to include any addition, modification, deletion, obfuscation that occurred in respective log files 104, para 135], any one of operation for viewing, creating, editing, or deleting a directory that is unrelated to system maintenance [blockchain transaction 162 is removed from blockchain ledger 160, Fig 7, element 710].
Referring to claim 13, Dande discloses a data transmission and reception system comprising: the confidential information processing apparatus according to claim 1 [system 100, Abstract; Fig 1].
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 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.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PGPub 2023/0367903 by Dande et al (hereafter Dande), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent 10,963,590 issued to Dash et al (hereafter Dash).
Referring to claim 3, Dande discloses all of the above claimed subject matter and also discloses detecting a text string followed by a specific text as the sensitive information [word followed by a port number is considered confidential information, para 64; words such as port, database name, and hostname are confidential information abased on the training dataset, para 104]. However it remains silent as to the text string being sandwiched between the specific text or between a text string including the specific text, as the sensitive information. Dash discloses that service request communications within a service request document are enclosed by note entry tags and include sensitive customer information [col. 5, lines 53-62, Fig 2B]. Dash also discloses that general text pre-processing is performed on the actual text (excerpt 200B) enclosed in the note entry tags as part of a tokenization process of anonymization logic 160 to determine tokens including sensitive information [col. 6, line 9 – col. 7, line 21, Fig 2B, 5].
Dande and Dash are analogous art because they are directed to the same field of endeavor- analyzing documents to detect sensitive information. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the detected confidential information type of Dande to include the note entry tags of Dash because it would achieve predicable results.
The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to make this modification because the extraction of service document data enclosed within the note entry tags as containing sensitive information in Dash further refines the set of rules for determining confidential information in Dande.
Referring to claim 4, Dande discloses all of the above claimed subject matter and also discloses using a dictionary function for discriminating the text string of the log data [Dande, wherein it is determined that word 332 is among keywords 334 included among the confidential information 180 within the task log 104, para 106, 153, Fig 6, element 608; the training dataset 194 stores the confidential information 180, para 60-62] and detecting a text string that is not discriminated based on the dictionary function, as the sensitive information [Dande, wherein a word determined to be a neighboring word to the selected word from the task log is selected as confidential information to include in generated template pattern even if the third word 332 is not among the keywords 334 (in the confidential information 180 stored in training dataset 194), para 155,106; Fig 6, elements 610-612].
However Dande does not teach that the text string sandwiched between a text string is detected as sensitive information. Dash discloses that service request communications within a service request document are enclosed by note entry tags and include sensitive customer information [col. 5, lines 53-62, Fig 2B]. Dash also discloses that general text pre-processing is performed on the actual text (excerpt 200B) enclosed in the note entry tags as part of a tokenization process of anonymization logic 160 to determine tokens including sensitive information [col. 6, line 9 – col. 7, line 21, Fig 2B, 5].
Dande and Dash are analogous art because they are directed to the same field of endeavor- analyzing documents to detect sensitive information. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the detected confidential information type of Dande to include the note entry tags of Dash because it would achieve predicable results.
The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to make this modification because the extraction of service document data enclosed within the note entry tags as containing sensitive information in Dash further refines the set of rules for determining confidential information in Dande.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Druker et al (US 2019/0190890) directed to: management of blockchain transaction processing including determining a type of a message including a structured format from a client device, detecting one or more sensitive fields within the message based on a type of the message and anonymizing values of the one or more sensitive fields within the message [Abstract; Fig 4-5 and corresponding portions of specification].
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 CHERYL M SHECHTMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4018. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 10am-6:30pm.
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, Amy Ng can be reached on 571-270-1698. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
CHERYL M SHECHTMANPatent Examiner
Art Unit 2164
/C.M.S/
/AMY NG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2164
Prosecution Insights