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 .
Priority
This application is a by-pass continuation application of International Application No. PCT/KR2023/017109, filed on October 31, 2023, which is based on and claims priority to Korean Patent Application No. 10-2022-0177081, filed on December 16, 2022, in the Korean Intellectual Property Office, the disclosures of which are incorporated by reference herein in their entireties.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/16/2025, and 02/02/2026 were filed along with and after the mailing date of the Non-Provisional Patent Application on 06/16/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to a Non-Provisional Patent Application received on 06/16/2025. In the application, claims 1-20 have been received for consideration and have been examined.
Specification
Applicant’s submitted specification has been reviewed and found to be in compliance.
Drawings
Applicant’s submitted drawings have been reviewed and found to be in compliance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 (Abstract Idea)
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 analyzed according to MPEP 2106.
Step 1: The independent claims 1, 11, and 20 fall into one of the four statutory categories such as ‘an electronic device’, ‘a method’ and ‘a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium’ claims. Nevertheless, the claim(s) are still considered reciting an abstract idea for the following prongs and reasons.
Step 2A: Prong One: The limitations of claims 1, 11, and 20 recite the abstract idea of:
“based on determining content displayed via the display is to be shared with an external electronic device, identify whether the content comprises personal information data (Mental process: a human determines content to be shared with another person and identify if the content comprises personal information data);
based on the content comprising the personal information data, determine to apply personal information protection to at least one piece of identified personal information data (Mental process: the human applies personal information protection to at least one piece of identified personal information data);
delete the at least one piece of identified personal information data from the content, and based on a type of the at least one piece of identified personal information data, insert at least one piece of replacement data into the content, wherein the at least one piece of replacement data corresponds to the at least one piece of identified personal information data (Mental process: the human delete the identified personal information data from the content and replace it with different replacement data into the content);
display the content having the at least one piece of replacement data inserted therein on the display (Mental process: the human display the content having the at least one piece of replacement data inserted therein on the display); and
share the content having the at least one piece of replacement data inserted therein with the external electronic device through the communication interface (Mental process: the human shares content having the at least one piece of replacement data inserted therein on the display), and
based on a first preconfigured condition being satisfied, delete the at least one piece of replacement data from the content and restore the at least one piece of identified personal information data (Mental process: based on a specific situation being satisfied, the human delete the at least one piece of replacement data from the content and restore the at least one piece of identified personal information data)”,
is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the human mind or with pen and paper, or by humans merely interacting with one another.
The additional elements are “An electronic device comprising: a display; a communication interface; memory storing instructions; and at least one processor”, “an external electronic device”, and “a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium”.
Step 2A: Prong Two: These judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The identified additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception (i.e., the abstract idea) into a practical application and thus does not render any technical improvement to a technical problem. To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the
technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the
extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the
performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the
method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform
the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing
technology (MPEP 2106.5(a) II).
In this particular case, the final step [i.e., sharing the content with replacement data and delete the replacement data based on preconfigured condition being satisfied] which could potentially realize an improvement is so broad that it does not necessarily achieve any technical improvement because a human can infringe it and it need not be implemented in a computer; and the context of the claim is not exclusive to computing environments and thus is not necessarily solving a technical problem.
In this existing case, it appears that claims invoke computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Examiner notes that recitation of additional elements is a use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, redact, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (see MPEP 2106.05(f) II).
The claims do not recite any additional elements beyond those recited for using the
computers as a tool to implement the abstract idea. The additional elements are recited at a
high-level of generality (i.e., non-transitory computer-readable medium).
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception alone and in combination with the abstract idea.
For instance, the previously-identified additional elements are merely well-understood, routine, conventional activity previously known to the industry, which were not by themselves sufficient to transform a judicial exception into a patent eligible invention. Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amount to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking) “BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1348, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1241 (Fed. Cir. 2016)”. (see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using general purpose computer.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Simply
appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry,
specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea
requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are
well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as
discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)).
Furthermore, adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere
data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining
information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an
abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366,
1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Thus, the independent claims 1, 11, and 20 are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims 2-10, and 12-19 of respective independent claims 1, and 11 have been analyzed and fall into one of the statutory categories and therefore passes step 1 analysis. However, under step 2, 2A & 2B analysis, the dependent claims recite mental processes which can be implemented by one or more human users using pen and paper. Thus, dependent claims also recite abstract idea and considered ineligible.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6-7, 11, 13, 16-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jose et al., (US20220309183A1) in view of Truong et al., (EP3591586A1).
Regarding claim 1, Jose discloses:
An electronic device comprising:
a display; a communication interface; memory storing instructions; and at least one processor, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor ([0024]–[0026], [0030]–[0032], [0041]–[0047]; describes a computer-implemented method performed by a computing device executing a webpage browser and screen-capturing agent for automatically protecting sensitive information during screen sharing), cause the electronic device to:
based on determining content displayed via a display is to be shared with an external electronic device ([0034] - [0037], [0041] – [0043]; discloses detecting a start-screen-sharing event, transmits a notification to the webpage browser, and then masks content that will be viewed by other participants. Paragraph [0037] explains that once screen sharing begins, the sensitive information is hidden from “other users participating in the web-based conference),
identifying whether the content comprises personal information data ([0021] - [0023], [0036] - [0037], [0042] discloses identifying sensitive data images displayed in the browser and embeds tags enclosing them. Capital One expressly identifies sensitive-data classes such as account numbers, SSNs, employee names, addresses, contact information, API keys, and IP addresses);
based on the content comprising the personal information data, determining to apply personal information protection to at least one piece of identified personal information data ([0036] – [0037], [0043] – [0044] tags identified sensitive text or images and, upon receiving the start-screen-sharing notification, determines that the tagged information is to be masked. Paragraph [0044] states that the sensitive-data tag masks the sensitive data upon receiving the first notification);
display the content having the at least one piece of replacement data inserted therein on the display ([0037], & [0044] discloses modifying the content displayed in the webpage browser so the sensitive information is masked during screen sharing).
Jose teaches - detecting that displayed browser content is being shared with external users, identifying sensitive information contained in that content, applying protection to the sensitive information, displaying and sharing the protected content, and, upon satisfaction of a time-, security-, user-, or other termination condition, unmasking and restoring the sensitive information
Jose does not explicitly disclose:
based on a type of the at least one piece of identified personal information data, inserting at least one piece of replacement data into the content; share the content having the at least one piece of replacement data inserted therein with the external electronic device through the communication interface, and based on a first preconfigured condition being satisfied, delete the at least one piece of replacement data from the content and restore the at least one piece of identified personal information data.
However, Truong discloses:
based on a type of the at least one piece of identified personal information data, inserting at least one piece of replacement data into the content ([0073]–[0076], [0079]–[0080] discloses determining the class or type of the sensitive portion; generates a synthetic portion using a class-specific model; and replaces the sensitive portion with synthetic data selected for the appropriate type and class. Paragraph [0076] expressly describes “selecting types for synthetic data,” generating the data using a model for the appropriate type and class, and replacing sensitive portions with those synthetic portions);
share the content having the at least one piece of replacement data inserted therein with the external electronic device through the communication interface ([0075] – [0076] discloses that the synthetic text containing the replacement SSN can be distributed without disclosing the original sensitive information), and
based on a first preconfigured condition being satisfied, delete the at least one piece of replacement data from the content and restore the at least one piece of identified personal information data ([0074-0076] discloses generating synthetic data using class and subclass-specific models, consistent with disclosed embodiments. Process 510 can include the steps of retrieving actual data, determining classes of sensitive portions of the data, selecting types for synthetic data used to replace the sensitive portions of the actual data, generating synthetic data using a data model for the appropriate type and class, and replacing the sensitive data portions with the synthetic data portions).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to use Truong’s class-specific synthetic-data substitution in Jose’s screen-sharing protection system to improve the usefulness and appearance of the protected content.
Jose hides or masks sensitive information during screen sharing but does not require that the masked region preserve the format and semantic type of the original information. Truong teaches that replacing an original sensitive value with corresponding synthetic data—such as replacing an SSN with a synthetic SSN—allows the content to be distributed without revealing the original value while preserving relevant formatting and data characteristics (Truong: [0074] - [0076]).
The combination would have involved the predictable use of Truong’s known, type-specific sensitive-data replacement technique in Jose’s known screen-sharing privacy system to obtain the expected result of sharing usable but privacy-protected content.
Regarding claim 11, it is a method claim and recite similar subject matter as claim 1 and therefore rejected under similar ground of rejection.
Regarding claim 20, it is a non-transitory computer-readable medium claim and recite similar subject matter as claim 1 and therefore rejected under similar ground of rejection.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Jose and Truong discloses:
The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor cause the electronic device to:
determine whether the personal information protection is to be applied to the at least one piece of identified personal information data, based on at least one of a second preconfigured condition, user input, or preconfigured user preference information (Jose: [0034-0037]]); and
receive a first user input indicating a selection of at least some of the personal information data, and delete data, from among the personal information data, that corresponds to the selection (Truong: [0058], & [0073-0076]).
Regarding claim 13, it is a method claim and recite similar subject matter as claim 3 and therefore rejected under similar ground of rejection.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Jose and Truong discloses:
The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor cause the electronic device to delete the at least one piece of replacement data, based on at least one of a second preconfigured condition, a user input, or preconfigured user preference information (Jose: [0038-0040], & [0045-0047]).
Regarding claim 16, it is a method claim and recite similar subject matter as claim 6 and therefore rejected under similar ground of rejection.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Jose and Truong discloses:
The electronic device of claim 1, wherein, the first preconfigured condition is satisfied based on at least one of:
receiving a second user input requesting to restore the at least one piece of identified personal information data, matching user preference information, reaching a preconfigured time (Jose: [0038-0040] discloses stating stop instructions based on a “a condition of time”, after which the sensitive data is unmasked), or location information of the electronic device matching preconfigured location information.
Regarding claim 17, it is a method claim and recite similar subject matter as claim 7 and therefore rejected under similar ground of rejection.
Claim(s) 2, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jose et al., (US20220309183A1) in view of Truong et al., (EP3591586A1) and further in view of Kurian et al., (US20170147828A1).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Jose and Truong discloses:
The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor cause the electronic device to:
configure a label for the at least one piece of identified personal information data (Jose: [0037] In an embodiment, the one or more processors may be configured to mask 314 sensitive data images in the webpage browser after a start screensharing event has occurred. For example, the web server may be configured to hide the visibility of the various elements (e.g., “sensitive_text_visible”) and make the hidden elements visible to the intended user only. For instance, the one or more processors may be configured to receive instructions from the user or from a software program to tag sensitive information that may be displayed within webpage browser 222 of computing device 120. A tag may include HTML code or any other computer programming instructions configured to label certain text or data images that correspond to sensitive information. Then, once the webpage browser receives a screensharing event notification or detects 310 a start screensharing event, the one or more processors may be configured to hide the text or images corresponding to the labeled sensitive information);
the combination of Jose and Truong fails to disclose:
encrypt and store the at least one piece of identified personal information data that has been deleted together with location information of the at least one piece of identified personal information data that has been deleted.
However, Kurian discloses:
encrypt and store the at least one piece of identified personal information data that has been deleted together with location information of the at least one piece of identified personal information data that has been deleted ([0025] The reversible data redaction and/or tokenization computing system 110 may allow noise and/or other data content to be included into the document to redact, obfuscate, tokenize or otherwise modify portions of the document. For example, the data tokenization engine 112 may allow the reversible data redaction and/or tokenization computing system 110 to “encrypt” a document, or a portion of a document, using a key. This key may be required to descramble to content of the document; [0026] For example, a business organization may communicate a document to an individual for a signature, where the document may include personal non-public information such as a social security number and/or an account number. Before sending the document to the individual, the data tokenization engine 112 may analyze the document to identify the non-public information and may selectively encrypt (e.g., tokenize) only the non-public information, wherein the recipient may descramble these portions using an associated tokenization key, review the complete document before signing, and re-tokenize the document to securely send back the signed document back to the business organization).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jose in view of Truong and include data preservation system using encryption system, as disclosed by Kurian.
The motivation to combine would have involved the predictable use of known tagging, encryption, and reversible-redaction techniques for their established purposes.
Regarding claim 12, it is a method claim and recite similar subject matter as claim 2 and therefore rejected under similar ground of rejection.
Claim(s) 4-5, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jose et al., (US20220309183A1) in view of Truong et al., (EP3591586A1) and further in view of Lee et al., (US12321412B1).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Jose and Truong discloses:
The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor cause the electronic device to:
detect a plurality of pieces of identified personal information data to which the personal information protection is to be applied (Jose: [0036-0337] & Truong: [0058], [0073-0076] & [0079-0080]).
The combination of Jose and Truong fails to disclose:
delete the plurality of pieces of identified personal information data at respective pre-designated times.
However, Lee discloses:
delete the plurality of pieces of identified personal information data at respective pre-designated times (Col. 1, Line # 62-67; FIG. 5 is a schematic diagram illustrating an example access-limiting process, in terms of which access to content (e.g., an ephemeral message, and associated multimedia payload of data) or a content collection (e.g., an ephemeral message story) may be time-limited (e.g., made ephemeral), according to example embodiments; Col. 10, Line # 36-44; An ephemeral message 502 is shown to be associated with a message duration parameter 506, the value of which determines an amount of time that the ephemeral message 502 will be displayed to a receiving user of the ephemeral message 502 by the messaging client application 104. In one embodiment, an ephemeral message 502 is viewable by a receiving user for up to a maximum of 10 seconds, depending on the amount of time that the sending user specifies using the message duration parameter 506; Col. 11, Line # 4-13; Additionally, each ephemeral message 502 within the ephemeral message story 504 has an associated story participation parameter 510, a value of which determines the duration of time for which the ephemeral message 502 will be accessible within the context of the ephemeral message story 504. Accordingly, a particular ephemeral message 502 may “expire” and become inaccessible within the context of the ephemeral message story 504, prior to the ephemeral message story 504 itself expiring in terms of the story duration parameter 508).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jose in view of Truong so that respective identified sensitive data items are assigned respective expiration or masking times as taught by combination of Lee and Truong.
The person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would be motivated to recognize that different personal-information times may have different period of legitimate usefulness and after that time, the personal information should be hidden to potentially falling into malicious actors.
Regarding claim 14, it is a method claim and recite similar subject matter as claim 4 and therefore rejected under similar ground of rejection.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Jose and Truong discloses:
The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor cause the electronic device to:
detect from the content a plurality of pieces of identified personal information data to which the personal information protection is to be applied; and share, to the external electronic device, the content having first replacement data inserted therein in place of the first data, and configure one or more properties of second data, from among the plurality of pieces of identified personal information data, such that the second data is deleted from the content shared and second replacement data is inserted in place of the second data (Jose: [0036-0337] & Truong: [0058], [0073-0076] & [0079-0080]).
The combination of Jose and Truong fails to disclose:
delete first data from among the plurality of pieces of identified personal information data.
However, Lee discloses:
delete first data from among the plurality of pieces of identified personal information data (Col. 1, Line # 62-67; FIG. 5 is a schematic diagram illustrating an example access-limiting process, in terms of which access to content (e.g., an ephemeral message, and associated multimedia payload of data) or a content collection (e.g., an ephemeral message story) may be time-limited (e.g., made ephemeral), according to example embodiments; Col. 10, Line # 36-44; An ephemeral message 502 is shown to be associated with a message duration parameter 506, the value of which determines an amount of time that the ephemeral message 502 will be displayed to a receiving user of the ephemeral message 502 by the messaging client application 104. In one embodiment, an ephemeral message 502 is viewable by a receiving user for up to a maximum of 10 seconds, depending on the amount of time that the sending user specifies using the message duration parameter 506; Col. 11, Line # 4-13; Additionally, each ephemeral message 502 within the ephemeral message story 504 has an associated story participation parameter 510, a value of which determines the duration of time for which the ephemeral message 502 will be accessible within the context of the ephemeral message story 504. Accordingly, a particular ephemeral message 502 may “expire” and become inaccessible within the context of the ephemeral message story 504, prior to the ephemeral message story 504 itself expiring in terms of the story duration parameter 508).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jose in view of Truong so that respective identified sensitive data items are assigned respective expiration or masking times as taught by combination of Lee and Truong.
The person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would be motivated to recognize that different personal-information times may have different period of legitimate usefulness and after that time, the personal information should be hidden to potentially falling into malicious actors.
Regarding claim 15, it is a method claim and recite similar subject matter as claim 5 and therefore rejected under similar ground of rejection.
Claim(s) 8-9, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jose et al., (US20220309183A1) in view of Truong et al., (EP3591586A1) and further in view of Busila et al., (US20210357512A1).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Jose and Truong fails to disclose:
The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor cause the electronic device to:
based on a deleted piece of data, from among the at least one piece of identified personal information data, being text, produce replacement text having a corresponding font and insert the replacement text into the content; and based on the deleted piece of data being an image, produce a replacement image having a corresponding parameter and insert the replacement image into the content.
However, Busila discloses:
based on a deleted piece of data, from among the at least one piece of identified personal information data, being text, produce replacement text having a corresponding font and insert the replacement text into the content; and based on the deleted piece of data being an image, produce a replacement image having a corresponding parameter and insert the replacement image into the content ([0030] It should be clear that the initial processing stage determines the type of data within each cluster of data within the document. This includes determining if the data within the cluster is an image, text (i.e. alphanumeric characters), a table, a signature, or any other type of data that may be encountered in a business document. In addition to determining this, the initial processing stage also determines the parameters of the cluster as well as the parameters of the data within the clusters. Thus, the initial processing stage can determine the size of the clusters (in pixels). This may mean determining the length, width, and height of the clusters in pixels or in any other suitable measurement units. For clusters of data containing text data, the initial processing stage can determine the font type as well as the font size of the text data; [0035] Once the replacement data has been generated for each instance of the sensitive data, the replacement data is then inserted into the image in a suitable manner to thereby mask and/or overwrite or obscure the original sensitive data with the replacement data. The replacement data is adjusted so that the replacement data matches the font, size, style, spacing, etc. of the sensitive data. This ensures that the replacement text of the replacement data is seamlessly blended into the document).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jose in view of Truong and include systems and methods for privacy and sensitive data protection based on type of data within a document, as disclosed by Busila.
The motivation to combine the system and method for privacy and sensitive data protection based on type of data within a document is to protect the data from being accessed from a malicious entity.
Regarding claim 18, it is a method claim and recite similar subject matter as claim 8 and therefore rejected under similar ground of rejection.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Jose, Truong and Busila discloses:
The electronic device of claim 8, wherein the deleted piece of data is the text, and the replacement text is pre-designated random text based on a pre-trained machine learning regular expression (regex) and a natural language processing model ([0022] Referring to FIG. 1, a block diagram according to one aspect of the invention is illustrated. This aspect of the invention includes a system 10 that has a pre-processing stage 20, an initial processing stage 30, and a processing stage 40; [0023] The pre-processing stage 20 receives the image that contains at least one document. The pre-processing stage 20 determines if the image is of a sufficient image quality for further processing. To this end, the pre-processing stage may analyze the image's contrast, color, image size, orientation, and sharpness, as well as the presence or absence of any artefacts that may affect the image's clarity; [0026] It should also be clear that, depending on the implementation, the pre-processing stage may also process the image to ensure that the image only shows/refers to a single document. If the image is a collection of images of multiple documents, the pre-processing stage may divide the original image into multiple images with each image only showing a single document; [0027] After the pre-processing stage, the adjusted image is then sent to the initial processing stage. The initial processing stage analyzes the adjusted image of the document to locate the relevant data within the image and to place suitable bounding boxes around that data. In addition, the initial processing stage determines the type of data within the bounding boxes).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jose in view of Truong and include systems and methods for privacy and sensitive data protection based on type of data within a document, as disclosed by Busila.
The motivation to combine the system and method for privacy and sensitive data protection based on type of data within a document is to protect the data from being accessed from a malicious entity.
Regarding claim 19, it is a method claim and recite similar subject matter as claim 9 and therefore rejected under similar ground of rejection.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Jose, Truong and Busila discloses:
The electronic device of claim 8, wherein the deleted piece of data is the image, the replacement image is a pre-designated random image, and the corresponding parameter comprises at least one from among a style, screen brightness, white balance, or sharpness (Busila: [0030] & [0035]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED M AHSAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5018. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 6:00 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, William Korzuch can be reached at 571-272-7589. 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.
/SYED M AHSAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2491
Prosecution Insights