DETAILED ACTION
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 .
1. Claims 1-3, 6-13, and 16-22 are currently pending in this application.
Claims 1-2, 6, 8, 11-13, 16, and 18 are amended as filed on 12/12/2024.
Claim 12 is listed as amended as filed on 09/29/2025.
Claims 21-22 are new as filed on 12/12/2024.
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, 6-9, 11-13, 17-19, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams et al. (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2014/0017648 A1), hereinafter Williams, in view of Loeb et al. (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2018/0213058 A1), hereinafter Loeb, in view of Atanda (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2019/0253431 A1), in view of Patel (Patent No. US 11,260,174 B2), and in further view of Lyle et al. (Patent No. US 8,047,915 B2), hereinafter Lyle.
2. With respect to claims 1 and 11, Williams taught system configured to facilitate management of subject information (0175), the system comprising: electronic storage configured to store subject information for subjects, the subject information representing individualities of the subjects (0046), wherein the subject information for a given subject includes stated information and a psychological profile (0104), wherein the stated information includes answers to questions presented to the given subject that are related to psychological attributes (0049), and the psychological profile includes psychological parameter values to psychological parameters derived from other information and the stated information (0087, where the answers spawn the subsequent sessions); and one or more processors configured by machine-readable instructions (0040) to: receive, from a platform, a request for the psychological profile related to the given subject (0062, where the clinician requests the patient data); authenticate, responsive to the request, the given subject by verifying the authentication information for the given subject (0077-0078); determine, responsive to authenticating the given subject, permission information for the given subject, the permission information indicating permissions for transmitting the psychological profile of the given subject to one or more of the platforms including the platform (0077-0078, where the authentication passing teaches the permission information under broadest reasonable interpretation); transmit, responsive to permissions, the psychological profile to the platform or the portions of the psychological profile (0045, the received information); receive, from the platform, additional usage information related to the given subject and the platform (0081. See also, the modifying information of 0094); and supplement the subject information for the given subject stored in the electronic storage with the additional usage information (0081. See also, the modifying information of 0094).
However, Williams did not explicitly state that the subject information was online subject information; wherein the subject information for a given subject includes usage information that characterizes usage of applications within digital application environments provided by online platforms, and that the platform was an online platform. On the other hand, Loeb did teach that the subject information was online subject information (0066, where the online data can be seen in 0050); wherein the subject information for a given subject includes usage information that characterizes usage of applications within digital application environments provided by online platforms (0066), and that the platform was an online platform (0050). Both of the systems of Williams and Loeb are directed towards managing user profile data and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Williams to utilize online usage information for updating profile data, as taught by Loeb, in order to provide a more detailed psychological profile as doing so would provide more a more accurate profile which would increase the systems marketability.
However, Williams did not explicitly state wherein the online platform provides digital environments for the given subject to interact in via individual application and/or web browsers; receive, via a client computing platform associated with the given subject, authentication information for the given subject, wherein the authentication information includes subject input and/or biometric information for the given subject; determine, based on the permission information, the permissions for transmitting the psychological profile or transmitting portions of the psychological profile to the online platform. On the other hand, Atanda did teach wherein the online platform provides digital environments for the given subject to interact in via individual application and/or web browsers (0079, the user interface); receive, via a client computing platform associated with the given subject, authentication information for the given subject, wherein the authentication information includes subject input and/or biometric information for the given subject (Table 1 after paragraph 0355, User Authenticator section, the biometric data); determine, based on the permission information, the permissions for transmitting the psychological profile or transmitting portions of the psychological profile to the online platform (0081-0082, where the profile information is shared and sharing a psychological profile was previously shown in Williams: 0104. Furthermore, it is to be noted that claiming that the profile type to be shared is, specifically a psychological profile, is to claim the intended use of the system, which is not given patentable weight). Both of the systems of Williams and Atanda are directed towards managing profile sharing and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Williams, to utilize specific authentication/verification techniques for providing profile/personal data, as taught by Atanda, in order to provide a more data-secure system as providing a more secure system would be desirable by a higher percentage of users which, in turn, would likely increase the systems marketability.
However, Williams did not explicitly state wherein the permission information includes timing information related to the one or more online platforms retaining the psychological profile, particular ones of the psychological parameter values permissioned to be transmitted, and/or restrictions related to utilization of the psychological profile by the one or more online platforms. On the other hand, Patel did teach wherein the permission information includes timing information related to the one or more online platforms retaining the psychological profile (71: 56 to 72:3, where the profile specifically being a psychological profile was previously shown by, at least, Williams: 0104), particular ones of the psychological parameter values permissioned to be transmitted and restrictions related to utilization of the psychological profile by the one or more online platforms (claim 1). Both of the systems of Williams and Patel are directed towards managing psychological profiles and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Williams, to utilize determining permission information for accessing psychological profiles, as taught by Patel, in order to provide stronger features for protecting private information as providing a more secure system would be desirable by a higher percentage of users which, in turn, would likely increase the systems marketability.
However, while a profile being explicitly a psychological profile can be construed as the intended use of the system, in order to produce a more compact prosecution, it will be put forth that Williams did not explicitly state that the psychological profile was characterizing the psychology of a given subject and that the request for the profile based on an online platform that provided a set of digital environments wherein the given subject interacted with the set of digital environments via one or more applications. On the other hand, Lyle did teach that the psychological profile was characterizing the psychology of a given subject and that the request for the profile based on an online platform that provided a set of digital environments wherein the given subject interacted with the set of digital environments via one or more applications (16:33-40). Both of the systems of Williams and Lyle are directed towards managing profiles and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Williams, to utilize specifically requesting a psychological profile via an online application, as taught by Lyle, in order to more easily obtain and maintain a user’s profile data as doing so would lower the system’s overhead by requiring less active work on the system.
3. As for claims 2 and 12, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1 and 11 (respectively). In addition, Williams taught to effectuate adjustments to a digital environment in the set of digital environments provided by the online platform for the subject based on the usage information (0094, the modification information, wherein the usage and online information was previously taught by Loeb: 0066).
4. As for claims 3 and 13, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1 and 11 (respectively). In addition, Williams taught wherein supplementing the subject information includes updating the psychological parameter values for the psychological parameters based on the additional usage information (0047).
6. As for claims 6 and 16, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1 and 11 (respectively). In addition, Williams taught wherein the one or more processors are further configured by the machine-readable instructions to: upon receipt of the request, transmit an authentication inquiry to the client computing platform associated with the given subject, and wherein the authentication information includes a response to the authentication inquiry, wherein analyzing the authentication information includes determining validity of the response, wherein the permission information is determined based on the response being valid (0070-0071).
7. As for claims 7 and 17, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1 and 11 (respectively). In addition, Williams taught wherein the request received from the online platform includes the authentication information (0077, the modification information, wherein the usage and online information was previously taught by Loeb: 0066).
8. As for claims 8 and 18, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1 and 11 (respectively). In addition, Williams taught wherein determining the permission information includes i) transmitting a permission inquiry to the client computing platform associated with the given subject and ii) receiving, from the client computing platform, an indication that the given subject opts-into transmission of the psychological profile to the online platform (0061).
9. As for claims 9 and 19, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1 and 11 (respectively). In addition, Williams taught wherein the subject information for the subjects are correlated with subject record identifiers (0177, where the correlation is given).
10. As for claims 21 and 22, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1 and 11 (respectively). In addition, Lyle taught wherein the one or more applications provided by the online platform include one or more of a game application, a reading application, music application, a social networking application, a fitness application, a shopping applications, or a food & drink application (6:33-40, where this, at least, teaches the game application limitation).
Claim(s) 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams, in view of Loeb, in view of Atanda, in view of Patel, in view of Lyle, and in further view of Kozlowski III (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2023/0120897 A1), hereinafter Kozlowski.
11. As for claims 10 and 20, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 9 and 19 (respectively). However, Williams did not explicitly state wherein the subject record identifiers are associated with non-fungible tokens, wherein a decentralized ledger indicates ownership of the non-fungible tokens. On the other hand, Kozlowski did teach wherein the subject record identifiers are associated with non-fungible tokens, wherein a decentralized ledger indicates ownership of the non-fungible tokens (0022, where the decentralized ledger can be seen in 0021). Both of the systems of Williams and Kozlowski are directed towards managing user profile data and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Williams to utilize NFT information when updating profile data, as taught by Kozlowski, in order to provide a more detailed psychological profile as doing so would provide more a more accurate profile which would increase the systems marketability.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
12. The applicant argues on page 9, with respect to intended use, have already been addressed by the addition of the Lyle reference that explicitly teaches a psychological profile. Likewise, as currently claimed, a profile being a psychological profile is simply showing a type of profile that can be built. As long as the features of profile building and management are shown, the type of profile (as currently claimed) is not important as long as the features could be used to build the aforementioned type of profile. Accordingly, Lyle (as claimed) teaches the aforementioned psychological profile and is applied under 35 U.S.C. 103.
13. The applicant argues on page 12 that “The Office Action Fails To Rebut Arguments that Patel is Non-Analogous.” However, the examiner has rebutted said argument on pages 10-11 (section 12 of the response to arguments) of the office action dated 04/02/2025.
14. The applicant argues on page 13 that “to the extent that the statement that both the claimed invention and Patel are “directed towards” the concept of “dissemination of personal information over the internet” could have some relevance to two-step test (which it does not), the statement is incorrect. In particular, Patel is not related to dissemination of information; Patel is related to device data access management. [Patel, Abstract]. Managing how data is accessed by users attempting access is not the same as managing how data is disseminated by a third party. Patel does not describe that the medical device disseminates data, and that such (nonexistent) dissemination needs to be controlled.”
However, as stated on page 6, the motivation to combine is listed as “Both of the systems of Williams and Patel are directed towards managing psychological profiles and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Williams”. Thus, the concept of dissemination of persona information over the internet does not appear to have relevance to the current rejection.
15. The applicant argues on page 14 that “if, for argument’s sake and without concession, the references could be combined and the combination could “provide a more detailed psychological profile,” this still would not be enough to support a rejection under Section 103 without evidence and reasoning establishing that Williams system could be modified to include the “online usage information for updating profile data” as allegedly described by Loeb. [Office Action, p. 4]. The Office Action does not even attempt to make this showing, or even affirmatively state such extensions of the plain disclosures of Williams and/or Loeb would have been obvious.”
However, as the system is providing a profile, it is obvious that the more detail the profile contains, the more marketable/desirable a system would likely be. Thus, the motivation to combine is clearly articulated in the result of obtaining the more detailed profile.
16. The applicant argues on page 15 that “the sole “motivation” statement is “to provide a more data-secure system.” [Office Action, p. 5]. This statement, however, falls short of a clear articulation of reasons why a person having ordinary skill in the art would combine Williams and Atanda, let alone that the combination would (or even could) result in claim language. For example, “to provide a more data-secure system” is a characterization of a result of the proposed combination; it is not an objective reason to combine the references. Even if, for argument’s sake and without concession, the references could be combined and the combination could “provide a more data-secure system,” this still would not be enough to support a rejection under Section 103 without evidence and reasoning establishing that Williams system could be modified to include the “specific authentication/verification techniques for providing profile/personal data” as allegedly described by Atanda. [Office Action, p. 5]. The Office Action does not even attempt to make this showing, or even affirmatively state such extensions of the plain disclosures of Williams and/or Atanda would have been obvious.”
However, for similar reasons above, provided a secure data system, and then obtain technology that makes the system more secure, is clear motivation to combine the references. Thus, the more secure data system is the articulation of why a user would be motivated to seek out the technology.
16. The applicant argues on page 16 that “the sole “motivation” statement is “to provide stronger features for protecting private information.” [Office Action, p. 6]. This statement, however, falls short of a clear articulation of reasons why a person having ordinary skill in the art would combine Williams and Patel, let alone that the combination would (or even could) result in claim language. For example, “to provide stronger features for protecting private information” is a characterization of a result of the proposed combination; it is not an objective reason to combine the references.”
However, for similar reasons above, provided a secure data system, and then obtain technology that makes the system more secure, is clear motivation to combine the references. Thus, the more secure data system is the articulation of why a user would be motivated to seek out the technology.
16. The applicant argues on page 17 that “Here, the sole “motivation” statement is “to more easily obtain and maintain a user's profile data.” [Office Action, p. 7]. This statement, however, falls short of a clear articulation of reasons why a person having ordinary skill in the art would combine Williams and Lyle, let alone that the combination would (or even could) result in claim language. For example, “to more easily obtain and maintain a user's profile data” is a characterization of a result of the proposed combination; it is not an objective reason to combine the references.”
However, more easily maintaining a user’s profile lowers the acquisition and maintenance cost of maintaining a profile. In turn, that lower’s the system’s overhead. Thus, it is clear that technology that would allow the aforementioned would motivate a user to seek out technology to perform the aforementioned features. Therefore, the reasons is articulated in the act of what the system would provide.
16. The applicant argues on page 18 that “Indeed, the supposed “motivation” statements for each of the proposed combinations lack a logical link between the factual findings and the legal conclusion of obviousness.” However, as seen above, the links logical links are obvious based on the provided motivations.
16. The applicant argues on page 19 that “While the Office Action provides various arguments that individual references should be combined with Williams (e.g., Office Action, pp. 4-7), the Office Action does not establish, let alone allege, that all of the cited references should, or even could, be combined. Merely stating that the various individual references could be combined with the primary reference of Williams is insufficient to establish that the independent claims are taught or suggested by Williams, Loeb, Atanda, Patel, and Lyle as initially alleged on pages 2-3. Indeed, without any statements, let alone articulated reasoning, that Williams, Loeb, Atanda, Patel, and Lyle can be combined, and that the combination describes the claimed invention, obviousness cannot be established. The Office Action’s piece-wise combinations of pairs of references are erroneous. At least for this reason, obviousness cannot be established and the rejection should be withdrawn.”
However, for the reasons provided above, it is believed that the applicant’s arguments have been addressed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH L GREENE whose telephone number is (571)270-3730. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 10:00am - 4:00pm.
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, Nicholas R. Taylor can be reached at 571 272-3889. 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.
/JOSEPH L GREENE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443