DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to a Continuation filed by Applicant on 4/13/2025.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement PTO-1449
The Information Disclosure Statement submitted by applicant on 4/13/2025 has been considered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.97. Form PTO-1449 signed and attached hereto.
Double Patenting
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.
Claims 1–20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory anticipatory-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1–20 of US 12,299,149 B2, issued May 13, 2025. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because at least independent claims 1, 13, and 20 claim the same subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1–2, 7–8, 10, 13–14, 17, 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Banipal (US 2022/0358237 A1, published Nov. 10, 2022).
Regarding claims 1, 13 and 20, Banipal discloses: an apparatus, comprising: a communications interface; a memory storing instructions; and at least one processor coupled to the communications interface and the memory, the at least one processor being configured to execute the instructions to: obtain configuration data associated with a source data table, the configuration data comprising an identifier of a column of the source data table that includes elements of confidential data (initial table includes identifiers of the contents or type of data stored in each column, which can be referenced for table manipulation. Banipal Figure 2 and ¶ 29. Recited identifiers can include sensitive information related to account numbers and date of birth. Banipal ¶¶ 28–29.); based on the configuration data, perform operations that anonymize the elements of confidential data within the column of the source data table (based upon identifying sensitive information in the data field, the system can mask sensitive data fields of the initial data set. Banipal ¶ 26. Where columns can correspond to a respective data field. Banipal ¶ 19.), the anonymized elements of confidential data establishing an anonymized column within the source data table (the initial data set with a masking method applied to specific fields. Banipal ¶ 29.); and perform operations that provision an anonymized data table that includes the anonymized column to at least one computing system via the communications interface (the data set with masked data is provided to the analytics provider. Banipal ¶ 30.), the at least one computing system being configured to process the anonymized data table and generate an output data table that includes the anonymized column (the analytics provider pulls a copy of the masked dataset a local system of the analytics provider and generates the analytics function entirely on its side. Banipal ¶ 36.), the anonymized column maintaining a referential integrity between the source data table and the output data table (the masked data set that is sent to the analytics provider may be masked in such a way that the relationships across data fields/columns are preserved and recoverable on the data owner side when the data owner receives the generated analytics functions from the analytics provider. Banipal ¶ 34. APIs are used to facilitate the analytics functions required by the analytics provider by referencing the original data without providing the provider with the sensitive data or knowledge of how the sensitive data is being masked. Banipal ¶ 35.).
Regarding claim 2, Banipal discloses the limitations of claim 1, wherein: the anonymized elements of confidential data preserve at least one of a format, a structure, or a composition of the elements of confidential data (the masking masks a data field by masking the attributes for each of the entities, in order words by changing the values of those attributes (for instance changing a 9-digit Social Security Number to be ' 111-11-1111' or 'XXX-XXXXXX'). Banipal ¶ 26.); and the at least one computing system is configured to apply a trained machine-learning or artificial-intelligence process to portions of the anonymized data table (the artificial intelligence model can be trained based on past analytics requirements and maskings to provide suggestions/recommendations about which data fields in a given dataset to mask and which to preserve. Banipal ¶ 23.).
Regarding claim 7, Banipal discloses the limitations of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to obtain elements of table schema data associated with the source data table, the elements of table schema data comprising the identifier of the column and information characterizing at least one of a format, a structure, or a composition of the elements of confidential data (initial table includes identifiers of the contents or type of data stored in each column, which can be referenced for table manipulation. Banipal Figure 2 and ¶ 29. Recited identifiers can include sensitive information related to account numbers and date of birth. Banipal ¶¶ 28–29.); and access the elements of confidential data within the column of the source data table based on the elements of table schema data (APIs are used to facilitate the analytics functions required by the analytics provider by referencing the original data without providing the provider with the sensitive data or knowledge of how the sensitive data is being masked. Banipal ¶ 35.).
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Banipal discloses the limitations of claims 7 and 13, respectively, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: obtain type-preserving mapping data that includes a first one of the elements of confidential data (the system maintains mappings and dependencies between data fields. Banipal ¶ 20.); obtain, from the elements of type-preserving mapping data, a first element of anonymized data associated with the first element of confidential data (mappings correlate the entity’s data between sensitive fields and any personal identifiers. Banipal ¶ 20.); and perform operations that replace the first element of confidential data within the column of the source data table with the first element of anonymized data (masking sensitive fields of the initial data set to produce another masked dataset. Banipal ¶ 26.).
Regarding claim 10, Banipal discloses the limitations of claim 8, wherein the anonymized elements of confidential data comprise at least one of an element of fully anonymized data or an element of partially anonymized data (Banipal ¶ 26.).
Regarding claim 14, Banipal discloses the limitations of claim 13, wherein: the anonymized elements of confidential data preserve at least one of a format, structure, or composition of the elements of confidential data (the masking masks a data field by masking the attributes for each of the entities, in order words by changing the values of those attributes (for instance changing a 9-digit Social Security Number to be ' 111-11-1111' or 'XXX-XXXXXX'). Banipal ¶ 26.); the anonymized elements of confidential data comprise at least one of an element of fully anonymized data or an element of partially anonymized data (Banipal ¶ 26.); and the at least one computing system being configured to apply a trained machine-learning or artificial-intelligence process to portions of the anonymized data table (the artificial intelligence model can be trained based on past analytics requirements and maskings to provide suggestions/recommendations about which data fields in a given dataset to mask and which to preserve. Banipal ¶ 23.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banipal in view of Pomroy (US 2008/0065665 A1, published Mar. 13, 2008).
Regarding claim 3, Banipal discloses the limitations of claim 1. Banipal does not disclose: wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: obtain a delta table associated with the source data table; and store, within a portion of the delta table, update data associated with a performance of the operations that anonymize the elements of confidential data within the column of the source data table.
However, Pomroy does disclose: wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: obtain a delta table associated with the source data table; and store, within a portion of the delta table, update data associated with a performance of the operations that anonymize the elements of confidential data within the column of the source data table (data masking is conducted for all required confidential data fields by populating the empty delta data records 406 with the masked data according to the data transformations in the user selection process. Pomroy ¶ 73.).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the identification of sensitive data in a data table and anonymizing the data when a new data table is rendered of the Banipal reference with updating a source table associated delta table with data related to the anonymizing operation of the source table based upon the teachings of Pomroy. The motivation being to enhance the performance with bulk loading of the original data as opposed to row-by-row updates. Pomroy ¶ 73.
Claim 5, 11, 16, 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banipal in view of Canard (US 2019/0050599 A1, published Feb. 14, 2019).
Regarding claims 5 and 16, Banipal discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 13, respectively. Banipal does not disclose: wherein: the configuration data further comprises an identifier of an additional column of the source data table and information characterizing a pre-processing operation associated with the additional column, the pre-processing operations comprising a full-redaction operation or a partial-redaction operation; and the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to apply the pre-processing operation to elements of data within the additional column based on the configuration data.
However, Canard does not disclose: wherein: the configuration data further comprises an identifier of an additional column of the source data table and information characterizing a pre-processing operation associated with the additional column, the pre-processing operations comprising a full-redaction operation or a partial-redaction operation; and the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to apply the pre-processing operation to elements of data within the additional column based on the configuration data (anonymizing initial data stored in a database resulting from an aggregation of personal data prior to the partitioning of sensitive data into subsets and sensitivity levels. Canard ¶¶ 15–19.).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the identification of sensitive data in a data table and anonymizing the data when a new data table is rendered of the Banipal reference with preprocessing instructions to redact partitions of additional source data based upon the teachings of Canard. The motivation being employ the use of algorithms that results in a better quality of anonymizing. Canard ¶ 13.
Regarding claims 11 and 19, Banipal discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 13, respectively. Banipal does not disclose: wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to generate the anonymized data table based on an application of a join operation to the anonymized column within the source data table and to a corresponding anonymized column within one or more additional source data tables.
However, Canard does disclose: wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to generate the anonymized data table based on an application of a join operation to the anonymized column within the source data table and to a corresponding anonymized column within one or more additional source data tables (anonymizing initial data stored in a database resulting from an aggregation of personal data prior to the partitioning of sensitive data into subsets and sensitivity levels. Canard ¶¶ 15–19.).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the identification of sensitive data in a data table and anonymizing the data when a new data table is rendered of the Banipal reference with preprocessing instructions to redact partitions of additional source data based upon the teachings of Canard. The motivation being employ the use of algorithms that results in a better quality of anonymizing. Canard ¶ 13.
Claim 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banipal in view of Canard in view of Pomroy.
Regarding claim 6, Banipal in view of Canard discloses the limitations of claim 5. Banipal in view of Canard does not disclose: wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: obtain a delta table associated with the source data table; and store, within a portion of the delta table, update data associated with an application of the pre-processing operation to the elements of data within the additional column.
However, Pomroy does disclose: wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: obtain a delta table associated with the source data table; and store, within a portion of the delta table, update data associated with an application of the pre-processing operation to the elements of data within the additional column (data masking is conducted for all required confidential data fields by populating the empty delta data records 406 with the masked data according to the data transformations in the user selection process. Pomroy ¶ 73.).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the identification of sensitive data in a data table and anonymizing the data when a new data table is rendered of the Banipal reference with updating a source table associated delta table with data related to the anonymizing operation of the source table based upon the teachings of Pomroy. The motivation being to enhance the performance with bulk loading of the original data as opposed to row-by-row updates. Pomroy ¶ 73.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 9, 12, 15, and 18 would be objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim were it not for the above double patenting rejection. If the double patenting rejection were to be overcome, these claims would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VANCE LITTLE whose telephone number is (571) 270-0408. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 9:30am - 5:30pm.
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, Jung (Jay) Kim can be reached on (571) 272-3804. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/VANCE M LITTLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2493
Prosecution Insights