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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
This Final action is in reply to the arguments/amendments filed 9/10/2025.
Claims 1, 4, 6-8, 10, 13, 15 and 19 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Per the PTAB decision (2/21/2025), Examiner was affirmed regarding the 35USC 101 rejection. Further, PTAB agreed that the focus of claim 1 as a whole is directed to certain methods of organizing human activity for content management that are commercial or legal interactions including agreements as contracts, legal obligations, and marketing or targeted/customized advertising and managing personal behavior, relationships or interactions between people to include following rules or instructions. As it relates to applicant’s arguments, they have been re-considered but are unpersuasive. Applicant states “the subject application expressly describes an improvement in computer functionality and expressly links that improvement to the claimed subject matter. Specifically, the claims include the use of a GID, formed using an identifier for the group of one or more content-presentation devices and a random number, as an index key in combination with a flat database and it is the use of this specifically formed GID as an index key in combination with the flat database that has been expressly linked within the disclosure to an improvement in the functioning of a computer, i.e., the specifically formed GID provides for more rapid and efficient determination of a synchronization state of a system having a large number of devices”, and that, “the combination of elements claimed improves upon existing content management systems by providing a very efficient and rapid determination of the mutual synchronization state of the content-presentation device and the consent management platform”. Examiner notes that the additional element of a “global ID (GID)” …used as an index key into a “flat database” only serves to further limit the abstract idea for receiving user consent agreements/packages and activating consent features associated with an accepted consent agreement in a computing environment. Applicant’s “flat database” and “global ID (GID)” are implemented on a general-purpose computer- see applicant’s disclosure ¶4: “a consent manager server of a consent management platform may be disposed in a computing cloud, and the consent manager server may include: one or more processors; and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon program instructions that, upon execution by the one or processors, cause the consent manager server to carry out operations including:”; ¶5: “In another aspect, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium may have stored thereon program instructions that, upon execution by one or more processors of a consent manager server of a consent management platform disposed in a computing cloud, cause the consent management platform to carry out operations including”; ¶25: “The computing cloud 104 represents a managed collection of computing hardware and software resources which may be made available via a communications network, such as a public or private internet, to serve as computing and/or networking infrastructure for enterprises and/or organizations… The physical implementation of a cloud may include various servers, databases, and file server systems, which may be centrally located and/or distributed. A server may, in turn, include one or more computing devices that include one or more processors, memory, and instructions for carrying out various tasks and operations”; ¶34: “processor 302 can be or include a general-purpose processor (e.g., a microprocessor)”. Moreover, applicant’s “flat database” is generically used to further process and store records and fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Applicant’s flat database is conventional, and merely a simple database system generically used to store records -see applicant’s specification ¶29: “…the consent management platform includes cloud servers 206, a flat database 208, a relational database 210, and administrative operations interfaces 212, some or all of which may be implemented with and/or by cloud resources. The flat database 208 refers to a flat, or horizontal, record structure, in contrast to a table-based structure of a relational database”; ¶65: “the server-based device record may be stored in the flat database, using the GID as an index for subsequent access to the record”; ¶112: “All of the respective server-based device records may be stored in a flat database of the consent management platform”; and fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. With respect to the “global ID (GID)”, applicant’s disclosure teaches, ¶62: “the platform may generate a global ID (GID) as a combination (e.g., a concatenation) of the device group ID and a random number, for example. The GID becomes a unique identifier for the device from among all devices known to the consent management platform, and it also embeds the device group identifier. In addition, the GID may be used as an index key into the flat database for rapid and efficient access to a server-based device record associated with the device”; as noted above, ¶65: “the server-based device record may be stored in the flat database, using the GID as an index for subsequent access to the record. The additional elements, a “flat database” and “global ID (GID)” only serves to further limit the abstract idea utilizing the “a consent manager server”, “consent-package file server”, “an interactive graphical user interface”, “at least one content-presentation device”, “media distribution system”, “consent management platform”, [claims 10 and 19] further recite, “one or more processors”, “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon program instructions” as a tool, and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, and hence fail to impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The use of a GID, formed using an identifier for the group of one or more content-presentation devices and a random number, as an index key is not patent eligible; it is simply using data (identifier) to identify a specific group of devices in a (flat) database which is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself. Instead, the GID is merely used an identifier (index key) for a specific group of one or more devices, stored in the flat database. The recited (flat) database structure similarly provides a generic environment in which the claimed method is performed and does not improve the functioning of a computer or improve another technology or technical field. Using these elements for their known functions does not provide an inventive concept. The steps for generating a global ID as an index key into a flat database are well-understood, routine and conventional computer activities when claimed in a merely generic manner, as it is here; and amounts to no more than applying the judicial exception using generic computing components, and linking the use of the judicial exception to a computing environment. “If a claim’s only ‘inventive concept’ is the application of an abstract idea using conventional and well-understood techniques, the claim has not been transformed into a patent-eligible application of an abstract idea” BSG, 899 F.3d at 1290-91. In view of the above, Examiner maintains the 35USC 101 rejection as noted below in this Final Office action.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1-20 are directed to a process (an act, or series of acts or steps), a machine (a concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices), and manufacture, or composition of matter. Thus, each of the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A-Prong 1: Independent claim 1 recites in part, “at a consent manager server of a consent management platform disposed in a computing cloud, retrieving a consent-package data file from a consent-package file server, the consent- package data file identifying a consent package, and comprising presentation-description information for rendering an interactive graphical user interface at least one content-presentation device for user selection of consent-agreement options associated with one or more consent features of a media distribution system that require prior end-user consent in order to be activated for the at least one content-presentation device; at the consent manager server, receiving administrative-user first input specifying one or more consent agreements, each identifying a respective consent feature with the consent package, wherein each given consent agreement of the one or more consent agreements is associated with a given textual language description of the given consent agreement, the given textual language description comprising a human-readable explanation of both the respective consent feature identified by the given consent agreement and a regulatory-compliant statement of what acceptance of consent to the respective consent feature by a given user means and/or implies in relation to the given user; at the consent manager server, receiving administrative-user second input (i) associating each of a group of one or more content-presentation devices with the consent package, and (ii) specifying an indicator of a common geographic location of the group of the one or more content- presentation devices, wherein the regulatory-compliant statement is compliant with respect to a jurisdiction associated with the common geographic location; at the consent manager server, receiving administrative-user third input designating each respective consent feature of the consent package as active, wherein any given consent feature of the consent package designated as active requires, for any given content-presentation device of the group, end-user acceptance of consent in order to be activated for the any given content- presentation device of the group; at the consent manager server, updating the consent-package data file by recording the first, second, and third inputs in the consent-package data file; storing the updated consent-package data file in the consent-package file server; at the consent management platform, responsive to receiving a consent-processing request from a particular content-presentation device of the group, transmitting to the particular content- presentation device response data associated with the consent package, and configured for causing the particular content-presentation device to display an interactive user interface for receiving user input specifying user choices of options associated with the one or more consent agreements of the consent package; at the consent management platform, receiving the user choices entered via the interactive user interface; and activating for the particular content-presentation device any consent feature associated with any consent agreement for which the user accepted consent… using the user choices entered via the interactive user interface to update a server- based sequence number; and causing a client-based sequence number to be synchronized to the updated server- based sequence number, wherein the consent management platform generates a global ID (GID) as a combination of an identifier for the group of one or more content-presentation devices and a random number and the GID is used as an index key into a flat database in which is stored the server-based sequence number for the particular content-presentation device”
The underlined limitations above demonstrate independent claim 1 is directed toward the abstract idea for receiving user consent agreements/packages and activating consent features associated with an accepted consent agreement, associating a group of content presentation devices with consent package for a common geographic location of the group and designating each consent feature of the content package as active in a computing environment.
Applicant’s specification emphasizes an interactive graphical user interface for user selection of consent-agreement options associated with consent features requiring prior end-user consent in order to be activated for a content-presentation device. The specification further discloses an administrative user receiving input for associating content-presentation devices with the consent package. The specification also discusses, receiving administrative-user input associating each of a group of one or more content-presentation devices with the consent package, and specifying an indicator of a common geographic location of the group of the one or more content- presentation devices and input designating each respective consent feature of the consent package as active, wherein any given consent feature of the consent package designated as active requires, end-user acceptance of consent in order to be activated for the any given content- presentation device of the group; storing the updated consent-package data file; transmitting to the particular content- presentation device response data associated with the consent package, and activating for the particular content-presentation device any consent feature associated with any consent agreement for which the user accepted consent (¶3-¶5,¶73, ¶74, ¶78-¶84).
Representative Claim 1 is considered an abstract idea because the steps for, “retrieving a consent-package data file ...identifying a consent package, and comprising presentation-description information ...for user selection of consent-agreement option...that require prior end-user consent in order to be activated; receiving administrative-user first input specifying one or more consent agreements, each identifying a respective consent feature with the consent package … and a regulatory-compliant statement of what acceptance of consent to the respective consent feature by a given user means and/or implies in relation to the given user; ...receiving administrative-user second input (i) associating each of a group of one or more content-presentation devices with the consent package, and (ii) specifying an indicator of a common geographic location of the group …wherein the regulatory-compliant statement is compliant with respect to a jurisdiction associated with the common geographic location; ...receiving administrative-user third input designating each respective consent feature of the consent package as active ...updating the consent-package data file ...storing the updated consent-package data file; ...responsive to receiving a consent-processing request ...transmitting ...response data associated with the consent package …...receiving the user choices ....activating ...any consent feature associated with any consent agreement for which the user accepted consent …wherein the consent management platform generates a global ID (GID) as a combination of an identifier for the group of one or more content-presentation devices and a random number and the GID is used as an index key into a flat database in which is stored the server-based sequence number for the particular content-presentation device ,” pertains to certain methods of organizing human activity groupings of abstract ideas (i) commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations; and (ii) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)) since the steps are directed to retrieving a consent-package data file, receiving administrative-user input specifying consent agreements, associating a group of content-presentation devices with the consent package for a common geographic location of the group, and designating each consent feature of the content package as active are data input and retrieval steps without technical implementation details as are steps of receiving a consent-processing request from a particular content-presentation device of the group and receiving end- user choices entered via the interactive user interface; such data input and data gathering steps pertains to (i) commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations; and (ii) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions. Hence, the claim recites an abstract idea--see MPEP 2106.04(II). Independent claims 10 and 19 recite essentially the same abstract idea as independent claim 1, therefore, they are also abstract based on the same rationale as independent claim 1.
Step 2A-Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements “consent manager server”, “consent-package file server”, “an interactive graphical user interface”, “at least one content-presentation device”, “media distribution system”, “consent management platform”, “global ID (GID)”, “flat database” [claims 10 and 19] further recite, “one or more processors”, “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon program instructions” merely provide an abstract-idea based solution using data gathering and analysis and merely provide instructions for organizing human activity, and implementing the abstract idea recited above utilizing the “consent manager server”, “consent-package file server”, “an interactive graphical user interface”, “at least one content-presentation device”, “media distribution system”, “consent management platform”, “global ID (GID)”, “flat database” [claims 10 and 19] further recite, “one or more processors”, “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon program instructions as tools to perform the abstract idea, and generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05 (f-h). Further, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea—see MPEP 2106.05(g). Independent claim 1 fails to operate the recited “consent manager server”, “consent-package file server”, “an interactive graphical user interface”, “at least one content-presentation device”, “media distribution system”, “consent management platform”, “global ID (GID)”, “flat database” [claims 10 and 19] further recite, “one or more processors”, “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon program instructions, (which are merely standard computer technology and hardware/software components- see applicant’s disclosure ¶4: “a consent manager server of a consent management platform may be disposed in a computing cloud, and the consent manager server may include: one or more processors; and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon program instructions that, upon execution by the one or processors, cause the consent manager server to carry out operations including:…”; ¶5: “In another aspect, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium may have stored thereon program instructions that, upon execution by one or more processors of a consent manager server of a consent management platform disposed in a computing cloud, cause the consent management platform to carry out operations including:…”; ¶25: “The computing cloud 104 represents a managed collection of computing hardware and software resources which may be made available via a communications network, such as a public or private internet, to serve as computing and/or networking infrastructure for enterprises and/or organizations. In some deployments, a computing cloud, or just "cloud," may augment or replace computing and/or networking infrastructure for a company or business, for example. The physical implementation of a cloud may include various servers, databases, and file server systems, which may be centrally located and/or distributed. A server may, in turn, include one or more computing devices that include one or more processors, memory, and instructions for carrying out various tasks and operations. Cloud computing resources may be implemented virtually, across multiple subdivisions and/or logical partitions of computing infrastructure, such as processor processing cycles, and delivered to multiple subscribers”; ¶29: “the consent management platform includes cloud servers 206, a flat database 208, a relational database 210, and administrative operations interfaces 212, some or all of which may be implemented with and/or by cloud resources. The flat database 208 refers to a flat, or horizontal, record structure, in contrast to a table-based structure of a relational database”; ¶34: “processor 302 can be or include a general-purpose processor (e.g., a microprocessor)”; ¶35: “data-storage unit 304 can be or include one or more volatile, non- volatile, removable, and/or non-removable storage components, such as magnetic, optical, and/or flash storage, and/or can be integrated in whole or in part with the processor 302. Further, the data-storage unit 304 can be or include a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, having stored thereon program instructions (e.g., compiled or non-compiled program logic and/or machine code) that, upon execution by the processor 302, cause the computing system 300 and/or another computing system to perform one or more operations, such as the operations described in this disclosure. These program instructions can define, and/or be part of, a discrete software application”; ¶37: “the computing system 300 can transmit data to, and/or receive data from, one or more other entities according to one or more protocols. In one example, the communication interface 306 can be or include a wired interface, such as an Ethernet interface or a High-Definition Multimedia Interface (HDMI). In another example, the communication interface 306 can be or include a wireless interface, such as a cellular or WI-FI interface”;¶41: “content-presentation device 106 and/or 202 and/or components thereof can take the form of a computing system... in the case of the content-presentation device 106 and/or 202, it can take the form of a desktop computer, a laptop, a tablet, a mobile phone, a television set, a set-top box”; ¶62: “the platform may generate a global ID (GID) as a combination (e.g., a concatenation) of the device group ID and a random number, for example. The GID becomes a unique identifier for the device from among all devices known to the consent management platform, and it also embeds the device group identifier. In addition, the GID may be used as an index key into the flat database for rapid and efficient access to a server-based device record associated with the device”; ¶65: “the server-based device record may be stored in the flat database, using the GID as an index for subsequent access to the record”; ¶112: “All of the respective server-based device records may be stored in a flat database of the consent management platform”) in any exceptional manner, and there is no evidence in the disclosure to suggest achieving an actual improvement in the computer functionality itself, or improvement in any specific computer technology other than utilizing ordinary computational tools to automate and perform the abstract idea for receiving user consent agreements/packages and activating consent features associated with an accepted consent agreement, associating a group of content presentation devices with consent package for a common geographic location of the group and designating each consent feature of the content package as active in a computing environment—see MPEP 2106.05(a). The additional element of a “global ID (GID)” …used as an index key into a “flat database” only serves to further limit the abstract idea for receiving user consent agreements/packages and activating consent features associated with an accepted consent agreement in a computing environment. Accordingly, applicant has not shown an improvement or practical application under the guidance of MPEP section 2106.04(d) or 2106.05(a).
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-18 and 20 fail to cure the deficiencies of the above noted independent claim from which they depend and are therefore rejected under the same grounds. The dependent claims further recite the abstract idea without imposing any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Dependent claims 2-9, 11-18 and 20 recite additional data gathering and processing steps. For example dependent claims 2 and 11 recite in part, “…wherein designating each respective consent feature of the consent package as active comprises…”; claims 3 and 12 recite in part, “…wherein the consent package is one of one or more consent packages of a consent campaign …”, claims 4 and 13 recite in part, “…wherein the consent-processing request from the particular content-presentation device comprises…”; claims 5 and 14 recite in part, “wherein the consent-processing request is a …”; claims 6 and 15 recite in part, “...wherein the consent-processing request from the particular content-presentation device comprises...”; claims 7, 16 and 20 recite in part, further comprising, subsequent to storing the updated consent-package data file in the consent-package file server: retrieving …”; claims 8 and 17 recite in part, “ wherein activating for the particular content-presentation device the any consent feature associated with any consent agreement for which the user accepted consent comprises: …”; claims 9 and 18 recite, “wherein the server-based device record associated with the particular content-presentation device further includes an indication of”, which are still directed toward the abstract idea identified previously and are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer or with computing components. The additional elements in the dependent claims amounts to no more than applying the judicial exception using generic computing components, linking the use of the judicial exception to a computing environment. Hence is nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as their respective independent claim since they fail to impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the abstract idea fails to integrate into any practical application. Thus, under Step 2A-Prong Two the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above, with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements “consent manager server”, “consent-package file server”, “an interactive graphical user interface”, “at least one content-presentation device”, “media distribution system”, “consent management platform”, “global ID (GID)”, “flat database” [claims 10 and 19] further recite, “one or more processors”, “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon program instructions, amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application nor provide an inventive concept (significantly more than the abstract idea).
Further, the additional elements including applicant’s “global ID (GID)” and “flat database”, also amount to no more than applying the judicial exception using generic computing components, linking the use of the judicial exception to a computing environment. In this case, the “flat database” is generically used further process information via common computing components see applicant’s specification ¶29: “the consent management platform includes cloud servers 206, a flat database 208, a relational database 210, and administrative operations interfaces 212, some or all of which may be implemented with and/or by cloud resources. The flat database 208 refers to a flat, or horizontal, record structure, in contrast to a table-based structure of a relational database. A flat database may provide significant access speed benefits and advantages for operations such as checking just one or a few data record fields in a database containing a very large number of records. An example of a flat database is a so-called NoSQL, or non-SQL database”; ¶65: “the server-based device record may be stored in the flat database, using the GID as an index for subsequent access to the record”). Applicant’s flat database is merely a simple database system used to store records -and fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The use of a GID, (as an index key) is simply using data (identifier) to identify a specific group of devices in a (flat) database which is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself. Instead, the GID is merely used an identifier (index key) for a specific group of one or more devices, stored in the flat database. Similar to the flat database, provides a generic environment in which the claimed method is performed and does not improve the functioning of a computer or improve another technology or technical field. Using these elements for their known functions does not provide an inventive concept. The steps for generating a global ID as an index key into a flat database are well-understood, routine and conventional computer activities when claimed in a merely generic manner, amounts to no more than applying the judicial exception using generic computing components, and linking the use of the judicial exception to a computing environment.
Accordingly, even when considered as a whole, the claims do not transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention since the claim limitations do not amount to a practical application or significantly more than an abstract idea for receiving user consent agreements/packages and activating consent features associated with an accepted consent agreement, associating a group of content presentation devices with consent package for a common geographic location of the group and designating each consent feature of the content package as active in a computing environment. Hence, claims 1-20 are directed to non-statutory subject matter and are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 USC 101. See 2019 PEG and MPEP 2106.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Spaey, US Patent Application Publication No US 2002/0059299 A1, System and Method for synchronizing databases”, relating to a system and method of dynamically updating synchronized databases connected by a communication channel.
Kleinpeter et al., (WO 2015/100307 A1), “System and Method of Managing Metadata”, relating to method/system for storing various metadata of content of a user and managing the metadata whereby users are able to receive and use content of other users, and content of service providers, through devices of the users.
Conclusion
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 of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Kimberly L. Evans whose telephone number is 571.270.3929. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 9:30am-5:00pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Lynda Jasmin can be reached at 571.272.6782.
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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair <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). Any response to this action should be mailed to: Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450 or faxed to 571-273-8300. Hand delivered responses should be brought to the United States Patent and Trademark Office Customer Service Window: Randolph Building 401 Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA 22314.
/KIMBERLY L EVANS/Examiner, Art Unit 3629
/LYNDA JASMIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629