DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to a Continuation patent application filed by Applicant on 7/14/2025.
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 7/28/2025 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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claims 1 and 12, of US 12,380,230 B2, issued Aug. 15, 2025.
The conflicting patent claims identify a plurality of transformations to determine and maximize a level of privacy risk and utility scores when applied to a dataset and output the data set with the optimal transformation applied.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The present application, as claimed, satisfies the requirements for patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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.
Claim 1 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hebert (US 2018/0004978 A1, published Jan. 4, 2018, cited in IDS filed 7/28/2025).
Regarding claim 1, Hebert discloses: a system for iteratively applying transformations to a dataset to de-identify the dataset while maximizing utility of the de-identified dataset, the system comprising a processor programmed to: iteratively apply new sets of one or more transformations to the dataset (analysis is requested by the user of a diverse anonymization scenarios that are applied to a dataset and the impact of the scenarios are determined, but the data owner can request the data be analyzed through another approach (the recited iteratively applied) to find a better balance of the utility factor and risk factor. Hebert ¶¶ 18–19.); measure a resulting privacy-risk score and a resulting utility score for the transformed dataset (a first risk rate is determined for a first combination of anonymization techniques, and a first utility rate is determined. Hebert ¶ 78.); compare the resulting privacy-risk score to a user-specified privacy-risk threshold and the resulting utility score to a user-specified utility threshold (based on evaluation of the risk rates and the utility rates, a combination of anonymization techniques from one or more anonymization techniques is determined. Hebert ¶ 78. A certain risk rate threshold value and a utility rate threshold value may be defined. Hebert ¶ 59.); and when both of the resulting privacy-risk score and the resulting utility score satisfy the respective thresholds: de-identify the dataset based on the set of one or more transformations that resulted in satisfaction of the respective thresholds to thereby generate a de-identified dataset that maximizes utility of the de-identified dataset (different anonymization techniques may be combined to determine a pair of a risk rate and a utility rate that comply with the defined threshold values. Hebert ¶ 59. The set of data is anonymized according to the determined combination of anonymization techniques. Hebert ¶ 78.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Gkoulalas-Divanis (US 2019/0258824 A1, published Aug. 22, 2019, cited in IDS filed 7/28/2025), user selects an anonymization technique among a plurality of anonymization techniques based upon the results of the utility determination at its optimal level, and further indicates that the process allows for identification of techniques that provide maximum data utility while being sufficiently privacy-protecting; Bailey (US 2011/0178933 A1, published Jul. 21, 2011), changing data protection mechanisms based upon calculated acceptable risk threshold values to maintain data protection; Pendergraft (US 2004/0098237 A1, published May 20, 2004), data modeling and simulation to develop fact-based recommendation for policy decisions; Nicodemus (US 2007/0143851 A1, published Jun. 21, 2007), analyzing policy options to manage security risk and maintain a minimum security threshold; Fairley (US 2022/0001892 A1, published Jan. 6, 2022), considering sets of available policies by simulating scenarios and score for risk; and Braghin (US 2017/0083708 A1, published Mar. 23, 2017), ensuring that the necessary level of privacy is satisfied in an anonymized dataset.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VANCE M 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