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 .
In response to the application filed on December 02, 2025, claims 1-14 are now pending for examination in the application.
Response to Arguments
The 112 rejection under USC 112 set forth in the 02/19/26 office action is hereby withdrawn.
This office action is in response to amendment filed 05/18/2026. In this action claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fadli (US Pub. No. 20170083916) and Finketstein et al. (US Pub. No. 20190342336) and Bratsman et al. (US Pub. No. 20180375945) and Barak et al. (US Pub. No. 20180287980) with Olmstead et al. (US Pub. No. 20180082678). The Olmstead et al. reference has been added to address the amendment of updating the identity graph data structure in the computer memory using the hardware processor to reflect the opted-out nodes and edges by maintaining all nodes and edges while marking their opted out status without loss of completeness or integrity of the identity graph data structure writing opted-out status to the dedicated opt-out status field of each opted-out note and edge while retaining all nodes and edges in the distributed storage computer memory without deletion of any touchpoint node, primary node, or edge from the identity graph data structure.
Applicant’s arguments:
In regards to claim 1 on Page(s) 29, applicant argues “The character of these claims as a whole is a specific technical method and system for managing opt-outs in a distributed graph data structure. The claims present a concrete, machine-implemented solution to a specific technical problem in data management..”
Examiner’s Reply:
In processing an opt-out there are “Determining, traversal, and evaluating” steps that has to be performed in the human mind. These steps are part of limitations that recites a mental process capable of being performed by the human mind by using data along with a computer being used as a generic tool.
Applicant’s arguments:
In regards to claim 1 on Page(s) 30, applicant argues “opt-outs are fully honored. Maintaining graph integrity while propagating opt-outs is a concrete improvement to the technical functioning of the graph database system itself.”
Examiner’s Reply:
Traversing nodes and propagating opt-outs does not improve the functioning of a computer. A claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a commercial interaction or mental process (eg managing opt-outs), then it falls within the “Mental process” grouping of abstract ideas set forth in the 2019 PEG. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The examiner notes that the computer as recited in the claims are being used for managing node optouts using a computer (being used a generic tools). The pipeline has nothing to do with improving a computer’s functions
Applicant’s arguments:
In regards to claim 1 on Page(s) 31, applicant argues “The combination of elements in these claims (i.e., the specific graph data structure with opt-out fields on both nodes and edges; the specific traversal algorithm determining node-level versus edge-level opt-out based on connectivity to other primary nodes; the automatic opt-out of newly ingested nodes; and the real-time message suppression check at the edge level) is not conventional and does not represent well-understood, routine, or conventional activity. Prior art in this field used deletion-based approaches that destroyed graph integrity. The specific ordered combination of these elements in the claimed invention addresses technical problems with deletion-based approaches (loss of completeness, inability to rescind opt-outs, inability to handle future nodes) in a specific, non-routine way..”
Examiner’s Reply:
Touchpoint nodes and Managing an opt-out status using said nodes is a conventional computer function that merely link the abstract idea to a generic computing environment. The I/O steps of storing and receiving node data does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity.
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.
Claim 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, on Claim Rejections - 35 USC 101 accordance with the "2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance" (published on 1/7/2019 in Fed, Register, Vol. 84, No. 4 at pgs. 50-57, hereinafter referred to as the "2019 PEG").
Step 1. in accordance with Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is first noted a claim method (claims 1-5), a system (6-7), a machine (claim 8-14) are directed to one of the eligible categories of subject matter and therefore satisfies Step 1.
Step 2A. In accordance with Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG, it is noted that the independent claims recite an abstract idea falling within the Mental Processes enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in the 2019 PEG. Examiner is of the position that independent claims 1, 6, and 8 are directed towards the Mental Process Grouping of Abstract Ideas.
Independent claim(s) 1 recites the following limitations directed towards a Mental Processes:
traversing, by the hardware processor, the identity graph data structure in the distributed storage computer memory to propagate the opt-out notification through the interconnected touchpoint nodes and primary nodes linked by edges (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to traversing a graph) by:
identifying with the hardware processor a corresponding touchpoint node in the identity graph data structure (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to identifying a touchpoint), and
marking the dedicated opt-out status field of the corresponding touchpoint node as opted-out while maintaining retaining the corresponding touchpoint node in the identity graph data structure without deletion (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to marking a field);
traversing with the hardware processor the identity graph data structure along at least one edge from the corresponding touchpoint node to a corresponding primary node (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to traversing a graph), and
marking the dedicated opt-out status field of the corresponding primary node as opted out while maintaining retaining the corresponding primary node in the identity graph data structure without deletion (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to marking a field);
traversing with the hardware processor the identity graph data structure along at least one edge from the corresponding primary node to each connected touchpoint node other than the corresponding touchpoint node (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to traversing a graph),
marking the dedicated opt-out status field of opting out each connected touchpoint node that is not connected by an edge to any other of the plurality of primary nodes as opted out while retaining each such connected touchpoint node in the identity graph data structure without deletion (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to marking a field), and
marking the dedicated opt-out status field of opting out each edge that connects the corresponding primary node to each connected touchpoint node that is connected by an edge to any other of the plurality of primary nodes as opted out while retaining such edge in the identity graph data structure without deletion (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to marking a field); and
updating the identity graph data structure in the computer memory using the hardware processor to reflect the opted-out nodes and edges by maintaining all nodes and edges while marking their opted out status without loss of completeness or integrity of the identity graph data structure writing opted-out status to the dedicated opt-out status field of each opted-out note and edge while retaining all nodes and edges in the distributed storage computer memory without deletion of any touchpoint node, primary node, or edge from the identity graph data structure (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to updating a graph);
upon ingestion of a new touchpoint node into the identity graph data structure, automatically evaluating, by the hardware processor, edge connections from the new touchpoint node to determine whether the new touchpoint node connects to a primary node marked as opted-out (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to evaluating opt-out connections), and responsive to determining the new touchpoint node connects only to primary nodes marked as opted-out, automatically marking the new touchpoint node as opted-out without requiring an additional opt-out notification (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to mark an output);
responsive to determining the new touchpoint node connects to at least one primary node not marked as opted-out in addition to one or more primary nodes marked as opted-out, automatically marking the dedicated opt-out status field of each edge connecting the new touchpoint node to each such primary node marked as opted-out as opted-out, without marking the dedicated opt-out status field of the new touchpoint node itself as opted-out (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to mark an output);
responsive to a request to generate a message using a touchpoint, automatically checking, by the hardware processor, the dedicated opt-out status field opted out status of the corresponding touchpoint node and the dedicated opt-out status field of any edge connecting the touchpoint node to a primary node associated with the message in the distributed storage computer memory (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to checking an opt out status), and
automatically suppressing generation of the message when the touchpoint node or the edge is marked opted out dedicated opt-out status field of the touchpoint node or the dedicated opt-out status field of the edge indicates opted-out status (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to suppressing a message).
Step 2A. In accordance with Step 2A, prong two of the 2019 PEG, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because of the recitation in claim(s) 1:
storing, in a distributed storage computer memory, the identity graph data structure comprising a plurality of interconnected touchpoint nodes and primary nodes linked by edges, wherein the nodes represent identities and the edges represent relationships between entities, and further wherein each of the plurality of nodes comprises a dedicated opt-out status field (recites insignificant extra solution activity of storing graph data);
receiving at a hardware processor an electronic message comprising an opt-out notification corresponding to a touchpoint at the identity graph data structure (recites insignificant extra solution activity of mere data gathering);
Step 2B. Similar to the analysis under 2A Prong Two, the claim(s) does/do not include
additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial
exception. Because the additional elements of the independent claims amount to insignificant
extra solution activity and/or mere instructions, the additional elements do not add significantly more to the judicial exception such that the independent claims as a whole would be patent eligible.
Independent claim(s) 6 recites the following limitations directed towards a Mental Processes:
configure said database as an identity graph comprising a plurality of touchpoint nodes, a plurality of primary nodes, and a plurality of edges connecting touchpoint nodes to primary nodes, wherein each of the plurality of touchpoint nodes comprises a dedicated touchpoint node opt-out field stored in the distributed storage, each of the plurality of primary nodes comprises a dedicated primary node opt-out field stored in the distributed storage, and each of the plurality of edges connecting one of the plurality of touchpoint nodes to one of the plurality of primary nodes comprises an edge opt-out field stored in the distributed storage, wherein the dedicated edge opt-out field enables opt-out status to be applied at the level of an individual relationship between a touchpoint node and a primary node independently of opt-out status of the touchpoint node itself (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to configuring a database);
identify with the one or more hardware processors a corresponding touchpoint node in the identity graph data structure, and automatically marking the dedicated opt-out field of the corresponding touchpoint node as opted out while retaining the corresponding touchpoint node in the identity graph data structure without deletion (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to identify a touchpoint node);
automatically traverse with the one or more hardware processors the identity graph data structure along at least one edge from the corresponding touchpoint node to a corresponding primary node, and automatically marking the dedicated opt-out field of the corresponding primary node as opted out while retaining the corresponding primary node in the identity graph data structure without deletion (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to traversing a graph);
automatically traverse with the hardware processor the identity graph data structure along at least one edge from the corresponding primary node to each connected touchpoint node other than the corresponding touchpoint node, automatically marking the dedicated opt-out field of each connected touchpoint node that is not connected by an edge to any other of the plurality of primary nodes as opted out, and marking the dedicated opt-out field of each edge that connects the corresponding primary node to each connected touchpoint node that is connected by an edge to any other of the plurality of primary nodes as opted out, while retaining each such edge in the identity graph data structure without deletion (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to traversing a graph); and
update the stored identity graph data structure to reflect the opt-out request by writing opted-out status to the dedicated opt-out field of each opted-out node and edge while retaining all touchpoint nodes, primary nodes, and edges in the distributed storage system without deletion of any touchpoint node, primary node, or edge from the identity graph data structure (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to updating a graph);
upon ingestion of a new touchpoint node into the identity graph data structure, automatically evaluate edge connections from the new touchpoint node to determine whether the new touchpoint node connects to a primary node having a primary node dedicated opt-out field marked as opted-out, and responsive to determining the new touchpoint node connects only to primary nodes marked as opted-out, automatically mark the touchpoint node dedicated opt-out field of the new touchpoint node as opted-out (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to evaluating opt-out connections);
responsive to determining the new touchpoint node connects to at least one primary node not marked as opted-out in addition to one or more primary nodes marked as opted-out, automatically mark the dedicated edge opt-out field of each edge connecting the new touchpoint node to each primary node marked as opted-out as opted-out, without marking the dedicated touchpoint node opt-out field of the new touchpoint node itself as opted-out (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to mark an output); and
responsive to a request to generate a message using a touchpoint, automatically check the dedicated opt-out field of the corresponding touchpoint node and any edge connecting the touchpoint node to a primary node associated with the message (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to checking an opt out status),
and automatically suppress generation of the message when the touchpoint node dedicated opt-out field or the edge dedicated opt-out field indicates opted-out status (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to suppressing a message).
Step 2A. In accordance with Step 2A, prong two of the 2019 PEG, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because of the recitation in claim(s) 6:
a plurality of networked computer hardware processors (i.e., as a generic processor/component performing a generic computer function);
a database implemented across a non-transitory distributed storage system and in communication with the plurality of networked computer hardware processors (i.e., as a generic processor/component performing a generic computer function), wherein the non-transitory distributed storage system further comprises instructions that, when executed by the plurality of networked computer hardware processors, cause the system to:
receive an electronic message comprising an opt-out request (recites insignificant extra solution activity of receiving data).
Step 2B. Similar to the analysis under 2A Prong Two, the claim(s) does/do not include
additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial
exception. Because the additional elements of the independent claims amount to insignificant
extra solution activity and/or mere instructions, the additional elements do not add significantly more to the judicial exception such that the independent claims as a whole would be patent eligible.
Independent claim(s) 8 recites the following limitations directed towards a Mental Processes:
automatically applying standardization and correction to the opt-out data received from the one or more outside sources, including normalizing the format of identity information contained in the opt-out data and resolving entity references to produce standardized opt-out data suitable for processing within the distributed storage system (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to applying standardization);
building and maintaining, in the distributed storage system, each of the plurality of nodes and plurality of edges within the identity graph data structure (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to maintaining nodes);
automatically propagating the opt-out through the identity graph data structure stored in the distributed storage system by:
automatically identifying an opted-out touchpoint node and marking the opted-out touchpoint node as opted out without deleting the opted-out touchpoint node from the distributed storage system (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to identifying and marking nodes);
automatically traversing the identity graph data structure along at least one edge connected to the opted-out touchpoint node to a corresponding primary node and marking the corresponding primary node as opted out without deleting the corresponding primary node from the distributed storage system (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to traversing a graph);
automatically traversing the identity graph data structure along at least one edge from the corresponding primary node to each of at least one connected touchpoint node other than the opted-out touchpoint node (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to traversing a graph),
marking each connected touchpoint node that is not connected by one of the edges to any other of the plurality of primary nodes as opted out without deleting each such connected touchpoint node from the distributed storage system (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to marking a node), and
marking each edge that connects the corresponding primary node to each connected touchpoint node that is connected by one of the edges to any other of the plurality of primary nodes as opted out without deleting each such edge from the distributed storage system, and without losing completeness or integrity of the identity graph data structure (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to marking an edge);
upon ingestion of a new touchpoint node into the identity graph data structure, without human intervention, automatically evaluating edge connections from the new touchpoint node to determine whether the new touchpoint node connects to a primary node marked as opted-out (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to evaluating a connection), and
responsive to determining the new touchpoint node connects only to primary nodes marked as opted-out, without any additional opt-out notification and without human intervention, automatically marking the new touchpoint node as opted-out (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to marking a node); and
responsive to determining the new touchpoint node connects to at least one primary node not marked as opted-out in addition to one or more primary nodes marked as opted-out, automatically marking each edge connecting the new touchpoint node to each primary node marked as opted-out as opted-out, without marking the new touchpoint node itself as opted-out (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to marking an edge); and
responsive to a request to generate a message using a touchpoint, automatically checking, in the distributed storage system, the opted-out status of the corresponding touchpoint node and any edge connecting the touchpoint node to a primary node associated with the message (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to generate a message), and
automatically suppressing generation of the message when the touchpoint node or the edge is marked as opted-out, without human intervention (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to suppressing a message).
Step 2A. In accordance with Step 2A, prong two of the 2019 PEG, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because of the recitation in claim(s) 8:
one or more processors (i.e., as a generic processor/component performing a generic computer function); and
a non-transitory distributed storage system (i.e., as a generic processor/component performing a generic computer function)coupled to the one or more processors and storing program instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the machine to perform the following operations:
receiving an opt-out request from an outside source, the opt-out request comprising opt-out data received from one or more outside sources (recites insignificant extra solution activity of mere data gathering);
Step 2B. Similar to the analysis under 2A Prong Two, the claim(s) does/do not include
additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial
exception. Because the additional elements of the independent claims amount to insignificant
extra solution activity and/or mere instructions, the additional elements do not add significantly more to the judicial exception such that the independent claims as a whole would be patent eligible.
Therefore, independent claims 1, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
With respect to claim(s) 2:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
wherein each of the plurality of touchpoint nodes comprises a touchpoint node identifier from a set of node identifiers, wherein the touchpoint node identifier unique to that touchpoint node with respect to each other touchpoint node, and wherein the step of opting out marking any of the plurality of touchpoint nodes comprises a touchpoint node identifier from a set of node identifiers, wherein the touchpoint node identifier is unique to that touchpoint node with respect to each other touchpoint node, and wherein the step of marking the dedicated opt-out status field of any of the plurality of touchpoint nodes as opted out comprises the step of marking as opted out the touchpoint node identifier of such touchpoint node in the dedicated opt-out status field of such touchpoint node (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to opting out a node).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no
additional elements to provide practical application.
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 3:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
wherein each of the plurality of primary nodes further comprises a primary node identifier from a set of primary node identifiers, wherein the primary node identifier is unique to that primary node with respect to each other primary node, and further comprises the touchpoint node identifier for each touchpoint node connected by one of the plurality of edges to each such primary node (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to opting out a node).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no
additional elements to provide practical application.
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 4:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
wherein the identity graph data structure further comprises a plurality of household nodes, wherein each household node is connected by one of the plurality of edges to at least one of the plurality of primary nodes, and each of the plurality of household nodes comprises a household node identifier from a set of household node identifiers, wherein the household node identifier is unique to that household identifier with respect to each other primary node, and further comprises the primary node identifier for each primary node connected by one of the plurality of edges to each such household node, wherein the method further comprises the step of:
after opting out marking the corresponding primary node as opted out, traversing at the processor one of the plurality of edges connecting the primary node to a corresponding household node, and then opting out marking as opted out the primary node identifier for the corresponding primary node within the corresponding household node without deleting the primary node identifier for the corresponding primary node within the corresponding household node (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to delete an identifier).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no
additional elements to provide practical application.
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 5:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
identifying at the processor a corresponding touchpoint node in the identity graph, and rescinding the opt-out marking of the corresponding touchpoint node as opted out (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to identify a node);
traversing the identity graph data structure at the processor along at least one edge from the corresponding touchpoint node to a corresponding primary node, and rescinding the opt-out out marking of the corresponding primary node as opted out (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to traverse a graph); and
traversing the identity graph data structure at the processor along at least one edge from the corresponding primary node to each connected touchpoint node other than the corresponding touchpoint node, rescinding the opt out marking at each connected touchpoint node that is not connected by an edge to any other of the plurality of primary nodes as opted out, and rescinding the marking at each edge that connects the corresponding primary node to each connected touchpoint node that is connected by an edge to any other of the plurality of primary nodes as opted out (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to traverse a graph).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
receiving at the processor an opt-out rescission notification corresponding to one of the touchpoints at the identity graph data structure (recites insignificant extra solution activity of receiving data).
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 7:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
wherein the identity graph further comprises a plurality of household nodes, and wherein each of the plurality of household nodes is connected to at least one primary node by one of the plurality of edges (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to traversing a graph).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no
additional elements to provide practical application.
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 9:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
wherein each of the plurality of touchpoint nodes comprises a touchpoint node identifier from a set of node identifiers, wherein the touchpoint node identifier unique to that touchpoint node with respect to each other touchpoint node, and wherein automatically marking a touching node as opted out comprises automatically marking the touchpoint node identifier of such touchpoint node as opted out in the distributed storage system (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to marking a touchpoint).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no
additional elements to provide practical application.
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 10:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
wherein each of the plurality of primary nodes further comprises a primary node identifier from a set of primary node identifiers, wherein the primary node identifier is unique to that primary node with respect to each other primary node, and further comprises the touchpoint node identifier for each touchpoint node connected by one of the plurality of edges to each such primary node (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to marking a touchpoint).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no
additional elements to provide practical application.
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 11:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
wherein the identity graph data structure further comprises a plurality of household nodes, wherein each household node is connected by one of the plurality of edges to at least one of the plurality of primary nodes, and each of the plurality of household nodes comprises a household node identifier from a set of household node identifiers, wherein the household node identifier is unique to that household node identifier with respect to each other primary node, and further comprises the primary node identifier for each primary node connected by one of the plurality of edges to each such household node (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to marking a touchpoint).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no
additional elements to provide practical application.
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 12:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
wherein the program instructions, when executed by one or more processors, further cause the machine to, after marking the corresponding primary node as opted out without deleting the corresponding primary node, traverse one of the plurality of edges connecting the primary node to a corresponding household node, and then mark the primary node identifier for the corresponding primary node within the corresponding household node as opted out without deleting primary node identifier for the corresponding primary node within the corresponding household node (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to marking a touchpoint).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no
additional elements to provide practical application.
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 13:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
Examiner is of the position the dependent claim is directed toward additional elements.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
wherein the program instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the machine to receive an opt-out rescission request from an outside source, the opt-out rescission request comprising opt-out rescission data (recites insignificant extra solution activity of receiving data).
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 14:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
wherein the program instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the machine to automatically identify a corresponding touchpoint node in the identity graph data structure and rescind the marking of the corresponding touchpoint node as opted out, automatically traverse the identity graph data structure along at least one edge from the corresponding touchpoint node to a corresponding primary node, and rescind the marking of the corresponding primary node as opted out, and traverse the identity graph along at least one edge from the corresponding primary node to each connected touchpoint node other than the corresponding touchpoint node, rescind the marking at each connected touchpoint node that is not connected by an edge to any other of the plurality of primary nodes as opted out, and rescind the marking at each edge that connects the corresponding primary node to each connected touchpoint node that is connected by an edge to any other of the plurality of primary nodes as opted out (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to rescinding an opt-out).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no
additional elements to provide practical application.
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fadli (US Pub. No. 20170083916) and Finketstein et al. (US Pub. No. 20190342336) and Bratsman et al. (US Pub. No. 20180375945) and Barak et al. (US Pub. No. 20180287980) with Olmstead et al. (US Pub. No. 20180082678).
With respect to claim 1, Fadli et al. teaches a computer-implemented method for managing opt-out requests in an identity graph data structure stored in a non-transitory medium comprising a plurality of networked computer servers utilizing distributed storage and processing, the method comprising the steps of:
storing, in a distributed storage computer memory, the identity graph data structure comprising a plurality of interconnected touchpoint nodes and primary nodes linked by edges, wherein the nodes represent identities and the edges represent relationships between entities, and further wherein each of the plurality of nodes comprises a dedicated opt-out status field (Paragraph 33 discloses attributes are attached to both vertices or nodes (e.g., 202) and arcs or edges (e.g., 204) of the model 200. The model 200 may represent a Bayesian Network (“BN”) consisting of both a directed acyclic graph (“DAG”) and a conditional probability distribution (“CPD”) and Paragraph 57 discloses a relationship between the pair of nodes and Paragraph 45 discloses universal ID 128 may also provide timely and relevant brand experiences across all touch-points using deep personalization and create a comprehensive customer persona);
traversing, by the hardware processor, the identity graph data structure in the distributed storage computer memory to propagate the opt-out notification through the interconnected touchpoint nodes and primary nodes linked by edges by:
identifying with the hardware processor a corresponding touchpoint node in the identity graph data structure, and opting out marking the dedicated opt-out status field of the corresponding touchpoint node as opted-out while retaining the corresponding touchpoint node in the identity graph data structure without deletion (Paragraph 34 discloses identify meaningful structural relations between the first party data 122A, the third party data 123, and unstructured data and Paragraph 36 discloses a opt-out prefix);
traversing with the hardware processor the identity graph data structure along at least one edge from the corresponding touchpoint node to a corresponding primary node, and opting out marking the dedicated opt-out status field of the corresponding primary node as opted out while retaining the corresponding primary node in the identity graph data structure without deletion (Paragraph 33 discloses queries on the model 200 may combine both edge traversals with attribute accesses and specific structures to improve traversals. For example, the model 200 may index both the edges and the neighbors of each node). Fadli et al. does not disclose receiving at a hardware processor an electronic message comprising an opt-out notification corresponding to a touchpoint at the identity graph data structure.
However, Finketstein et al. teaches receiving at a hardware processor an electronic message comprising an opt-out notification corresponding to a touchpoint at the identity graph data structure (Paragraph 44 discloses universal privacy settings/opt-in/opt-out client allows a user to connect to the APIs for various different sites which have the user's data. The universal client orchestrates curation of privacy settings and overall opting out of any of the sites which the user selects or are provided by default. It allows the user to select total or partial opt-ins or opt-outs where the user has granular control when they may wish to allow some uses of data and access to data but would restrict others & first time the user does this, the system may automatically generate a pop-up window or notification and ask the user for their settings, allowing the system to auto configure based on the user's online behavior).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing data of invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Fadli’s universal identification with Finketstein et al.’s opt-in/opt-out. This would have facilitated privacy control management.
Fadli as modified by Finketstein et al. does not disclose traversing with the hardware processor the identity graph data structure along at least one edge from the corresponding primary node to each connected touchpoint node other than the corresponding touchpoint node, marking the dedicated opt-out status field each connected touchpoint node that is not connected by an edge to any other of the plurality of primary nodes as opted out while retaining each such connected touchpoint node in the identity graph data structure without deletion, and marking the dedicated opt-out status field of each edge that connects the corresponding primary node to each connected touchpoint node that is connected by an edge to any other of the plurality of primary nodes as opted out while retaining such edge in the identity graph dat structure without deletion.
However, Bratsman et al. teaches traversing with the hardware processor the identity graph data structure along at least one edge from the corresponding primary node to each connected touchpoint node other than the corresponding touchpoint node, marking the dedicated opt-out status field each connected touchpoint node that is not connected by an edge to any other of the plurality of primary nodes as opted out while retaining each such connected touchpoint node in the identity graph data structure without deletion, and marking the dedicated opt-out status field of each edge that connects the corresponding primary node to each connected touchpoint node that is connected by an edge to any other of the plurality of primary nodes as opted out while retaining such edge in the identity graph dat structure without deletion (Paragraph 42 discloses user opt-outs and Paragraph 42 discloses social-networking system 160 or explicit connections of a user to a node, object, entity, brand, or page on social-networking system 160 and Paragraph 42 discloses social- or open-graph edge types).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing data of invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Fadli’s universal identification and Finketstein et al.’s opt-in/opt-out with Bratsman et al.’s social networking. This would have facilitated the relationship maintenance between nodes.
The Fadli reference as modified by Finketstein et al. and Bratsman et al. does not disclose upon ingestion of a new touchpoint node into the identity graph data structure, automatically evaluating, by the hardware processor, edge connections from the new touchpoint node to determine whether the new touchpoint node connects to a primary node marked as opted-out, and responsive to determining the new touchpoint node connects only to primary nodes marked as opted-out, automatically marking the new touchpoint node as opted-out without requiring an additional opt-out notification…; responsive to a request to generate a message using a touchpoint, automatically checking, by the hardware processor.
However, Barak et al. teaches upon ingestion of a new touchpoint node into the identity graph data structure, automatically evaluating, by the hardware processor, edge connections from the new touchpoint node to determine whether the new touchpoint node connects to a primary node marked as opted-out, and responsive to determining the new touchpoint node connects only to primary nodes marked as opted-out, automatically marking the new touchpoint node as opted-out without requiring an additional opt-out notification (Paragraph 50 discloses the social graph 300, social-networking system 260 may analyze the number and/or type of edges 306 connecting particular user nodes 302 and concept nodes 304 and Paragraph 50 discloses Identifying and targeting users may also include privacy settings (such as user opt-outs), data hashing, or data anonymization, as appropriate);
responsive to a request to generate a message using a touchpoint, automatically checking, by the hardware processor, the dedicated opt-out status field of the corresponding touchpoint node and the dedicated opt-out status field of any edge connecting the touchpoint node to a primary node associated with the message in the distributed storage computer memory, and automatically suppressing generation of the message when the dedicated opt-out status field of the touchpoint node or the dedicated opt-out status field of the edge indicates opted-out status (Paragraphs 18-19 discloses if the message is not subject to a blocking instruction 160, the normal processing flow may proceed. For example, the message may be shared with others in a manner specified by the target user (e.g., through direct messaging, timeline posting, etc.). On the other hand, if the message is associated with a blocking instruction 170, the distribution platform may prevent the message from being presented to the other users to whom the message may otherwise be presented).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing data of invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Fadli’s universal identification and Finketstein et al.’s opt-in/opt-out and Bratsman et al.’s social networking with Barak et al.’s content distribution. This would have facilitated message sharing.
The Fadli reference as modified by Finketstein et al. and Bratsman et al. and Barak et al. does not disclose updating the identity graph data structure in the computer memory using the hardware processor to reflect the opted-out nodes and edges …; , automatically marking the dedicated opt-out status field of each edge connecting the new touchpoint node to each such primary node marked as opted-out as opted-out.
However, Olmstead et al. discloses updating the identity graph data structure in the computer memory using the hardware processor to reflect the opted-out nodes and edges by maintaining all nodes and edges while marking their opted out status without loss of completeness or integrity of the identity graph data structure writing opted-out status to the dedicated opt-out status field of each opted-out note and edge while retaining all nodes and edges in the distributed storage computer memory without deletion of any touchpoint node, primary node, or edge from the identity graph data structure (Paragraph 77 discloses Machine learning server 204 generates, updates and stores the graph structure data including the nodes and edges);
responsive to determining the new touchpoint node connects to at least one primary node not marked as opted-out in addition to one or more primary nodes marked as opted-out, automatically marking the dedicated opt-out status field of each edge connecting the new touchpoint node to each such primary node marked as opted-out as opted-out, without marking the dedicated opt-out status field of the new touchpoint node itself as opted-out (Paragraph 53 discloses system 100 can have the ability to remove nodes and edges, such as contacts that opt-out of the system 100 or contacts that are no longer available, employed by an organization or deceased persons. In some embodiments, contacts can opt-out from the system 100. This allows users to opt-out of being part of the graph structure or redact, temporarily or non-destructively hide particular relationship links, while still being part of the system 100 overall).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing data of invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Fadli’s universal identification and Finketstein et al.’s opt-in/opt-out and Bratsman et al.’s social networking and Barak et al.’s content distribution with Olmstead et al.’s electronic communication This would have facilitated message sharing.
The Fadli reference as modified by Finketstein et al. and Bratsman et al. and Barak et al. and Olmstead et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1. With respect to claim 2, Fadli discloses the method of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of touchpoint nodes comprises a touchpoint node identifier from a set of node identifiers, wherein the touchpoint node identifier is unique to that touchpoint node with respect to each other touchpoint node, and wherein the step of marking the dedicated opt out status field of any of the plurality of touchpoint nodes comprises the step of marking as opted out the touchpoint node identifier of such touchpoint node in the dedicated opt-out status field of such touchpoint node (Paragraph 45 discloses universal ID 128 may also provide timely and relevant brand experiences across all touch-points using deep personalization and create a comprehensive customer persona).
The Fadli reference as modified by Finketstein et al. and Bratsman et al. and Barak et al. and Olmstead et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1. With respect to claim 3, Fadli discloses the method of claim 2, wherein each of the plurality of primary nodes further comprises a primary node identifier from a set of primary node identifiers, wherein the primary node identifier is unique to that primary node with respect to each other primary node, and further comprises the touchpoint node identifier for each touchpoint node connected by one of the plurality of edges to each such primary node (Paragraph 45 discloses universal ID 128 may help marketers algorithmically map the journey of their customers to connect unique identifiers from one or more of the data 122A, 123A across digital channels and connected devices to one customer).
The Fadli reference as modified by Finketstein et al. and Bratsman et al. and Barak et al. and Olmstead et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 3. With respect to claim 4, Fadli discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the identity graph data structure further comprises a plurality of household nodes, wherein each household node is connected by one of the plurality of edges to at least one of the plurality of primary nodes, and each of the plurality of household nodes comprises a household node identifier from a set of household node identifiers, wherein the household node identifier is unique to that household identifier with respect to each other primary node, and further comprises the primary node identifier for each primary node connected by one of the plurality of edges to each such household node, wherein the method further comprises the step of:
after opting out marking the corresponding primary node as opted out, traversing at the processor one of the plurality of edges connecting the primary node to a corresponding household node, and then opting out marking as opted out the primary node identifier for the corresponding primary node within the corresponding household node without deleting the primary node identifier for the corresponding primary node within the corresponding household node (Paragraph 36 discloses the collections 402 may include a user ID 402A, a year 402B, a customer ID 402C, a device ID 402D, an operating system prefix 402E, and overflow 402F, an opt-out prefix 402G, etc. Groups of the collections 402 may indicate other information either determined from or represented by the model 200).
The Fadli reference as modified by Finketstein et al. and Bratsman et al. and Barak et al. and Olmstead et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1. With respect to claim 5, Bratsman et al. discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising the steps of:
receiving at the processor an opt-out rescission notification corresponding to one of the touchpoints at the identity graph data structure (Paragraph 26 discloses the authorization server may allow users to opt in to or opt out of having their actions logged by social-networking system 160 or shared with other systems (e.g. third-party system 170), such as, for example, by setting appropriate privacy settings);
identifying at the processor a corresponding touchpoint node in the identity graph, and rescinding the marking of the corresponding touchpoint node as opted out (Paragraph 26 discloses the authorization server may allow users to opt in to or opt out of having their actions logged by social-networking system 160 or shared with other systems (e.g. third-party system 170), such as, for example, by setting appropriate privacy settings);
traversing the identity graph data structure at the processor along at least one edge from the corresponding touchpoint node to a corresponding primary node, and rescinding the marking of the corresponding primary node as opted out (Paragraph 26 discloses the authorization server may allow users to opt in to or opt out of having their actions logged by social-networking system 160 or shared with other systems (e.g. third-party system 170), such as, for example, by setting appropriate privacy settings); and
traversing the identity graph data structure at the processor along at least one edge from the corresponding primary node to each connected touchpoint node other than the corresponding touchpoint node, rescinding the marking at each connected touchpoint node that is not connected by an edge to any other of the plurality of primary nodes as opted out, and rescinding the marking at each edge that connects the corresponding primary node to each connected touchpoint node that is connected by an edge to any other of the plurality of primary nodes as opted out (Paragraph 26 discloses the authorization server may allow users to opt in to or opt out of having their actions logged by social-networking system 160 or shared with other systems (e.g. third-party system 170), such as, for example, by setting appropriate privacy settings). The motivation to combine statement previously provided in the rejection of independent claim 1 provided above, combining the Fadli reference and the Bratsman et al. reference is applicable to dependent claim 5.
With respect to claim 6, Fadli teaches a data storage and retrieval system comprising;
A plurality of networked computer hardware processors (Paragraph 74 discloses processors);
A database implemented across a non-transitory distributed storage system and in communication with plurality of networked computer hardware processors (Paragraph 17 discloses processor-executable instructions stored in the memory and operable on the processor);
wherein the non- transitory distributed storage system further comprises instructions that, when executed by the plurality of networked computer hardware processors (Paragraph 20 discloses processor-executable instructions stored in the memory and operable on the processor), cause the system to:
configure said database as an identity graph comprising a plurality of touchpoint nodes, a plurality of primary nodes, and a plurality of edges connecting touchpoint nodes to primary nodes, wherein each of the plurality of touchpoint nodes comprises a dedicated touchpoint node opt-out field stored in the distributed storage, each of the plurality of primary nodes comprises a dedicated primary node opt-out field stored in the distributed storage, and each of the plurality of edges connecting one of the plurality of touchpoint nodes to one of the plurality of primary nodes comprises an edge opt-out field stored in the distributed storage, wherein the dedicated edge opt-out field enables opt-out status status to be applied at the level of an individual relationship between a touchpoint node and a primary node independently of opt-out status of the touchpoint itself (Paragraph 15 discloses the universal identification graph algorithm may integrate with a variety of digital management platforms (“DMPs”), enable mapping of a customer's journey across multiple, different identifications, allow deep personalization based on behaviors, habits, and preferences across the entire customer journey, help create a more comprehensive customer profile to enable marketers to target the customer with relevant content at the right time and through the right channels, and also provide the customer with the ability to quickly opt out).
identify with the one or more hardware processors a corresponding touchpoint node in the identity graph data structure, and automatically marking the dedicated opt-out field of the corresponding touchpoint node as opted out while retaining the corresponding touchpoint node in the identity graph data structure without deletion (Paragraph 34 discloses identify meaningful structural relations between the first party data 122A, the third party data 123, and unstructured data and Paragraph 36 discloses a opt-out prefix). Fadli et al. does not disclose receive an electronic message opt-out request.
However, Finketstein et al. teaches receive an electronic message opt-out request (Paragraph 44 discloses universal privacy settings/opt-in/opt-out client allows a user to connect to the APIs for various different sites which have the user's data. The universal client orchestrates curation of privacy settings and overall opting out of any of the sites which the user selects or are provided by default. It allows the user to select total or partial opt-ins or opt-outs where the user has granular control when they may wish to allow some uses of data and access to data but would restrict others & first time the user does this, the system may automatically generate a pop-up window or notification and ask the user for their settings, allowing the system to auto configure based on the user's online behavior).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing data of invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Fadli’s universal identification with Finketstein et al.’s opt-in/opt-out. This would have facilitated privacy control management.
Fadli as modified by Finketstein et al. does not disclose automatically traverse with the hardware processor the identity graph data structure along at least one edge from the corresponding primary node to each connected touchpoint node other than the corresponding touchpoint node, automatically marking the dedicated opt-out field of each connected touchpoint node that is not connected by an edge to any other of the plurality of primary nodes, and marking the dedicated opt-out field of each edge that connects the corresponding primary node to each connected touchpoint node that is connected by an edge to any other of the plurality of primary nodes as opted out, while retaining each such edge in the identity graph data structure without deletion.
However, Bratsman et al. teaches automatically traverse with the one or more hardware processors the identity graph data structure along at least one edge from the corresponding touchpoint node to a corresponding primary node, and automatically marking the dedicated opt-out field of the corresponding primary node as opted out while retaining the correspondence primary node in the identity graph structure without deletion (Paragraph 42 discloses user opt-outs and Paragraph 42 discloses social-networking system 160 or explicit connections of a user to a node, object, entity, brand, or page on social-networking system 160 and Paragraph 42 discloses social- or open-graph edge types).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing data of invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Fadli’s universal identification and Finketstein et al.’s opt-in/opt-out with Bratsman et al.’s social networking. This would have facilitated the relationship maintenance between nodes.
The Fadli reference as modified by Finketstein et al. and Bratsman et al. does not disclose upon ingestion of a new touchpoint node into the identity graph data structure, automatically evaluate edge connections from the new touchpoint node to determine whether the new touchpoint node connects to a primary node having a primary node dedicated opt-out field marked as opted-out, and responsive to determining the new touchpoint node connects only to primary nodes marked as opted-out, automatically mark the touchpoint node dedicated opt-out field of the new touchpoint node as opted-out.
However, Barak et al. teaches upon ingestion of a new touchpoint node into the identity graph data structure, automatically evaluating, by the hardware processor, edge connections from the new touchpoint node to determine whether the new touchpoint node connects to a primary node marked as opted-out, and responsive to determining the new touchpoint node connects only to primary nodes marked as opted-out, automatically marking the new touchpoint node as opted-out without requiring an additional opt-out notification (Paragraph 50 discloses the social graph 300, social-networking system 260 may analyze the number and/or type of edges 306 connecting particular user nodes 302 and concept nodes 304 and Paragraph 50 discloses Identifying and targeting users may also include privacy settings (such as user opt-outs), data hashing, or data anonymization, as appropriate);
responsive to a request to generate a message using a touchpoint, automatically check the dedicated opt-out field of the corresponding touchpoint node and any edge connecting the touchpoint node to a primary node associated with the message, and automatically suppress generation of the message when the touchpoint node dedicated opt-out field or the edge dedicated opt-out field indicates opted-out status (Paragraphs 18-19 discloses if the message is not subject to a blocking instruction 160, the normal processing flow may proceed. For example, the message may be shared with others in a manner specified by the target user (e.g., through direct messaging, timeline posting, etc.). On the other hand, if the message is associated with a blocking instruction 170, the distribution platform may prevent the message from being presented to the other users to whom the message may otherwise be presented).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing data of invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Fadli’s universal identification and Finketstein et al.’s opt-in/opt-out and Bratsman et al.’s social networking with Barak et al.’s content distribution. This would have facilitated message sharing.
The Fadli reference as modified by Finketstein et al. and Bratsman et al. and Barak et al. does not disclose updating the identity graph data structure in the computer memory using the hardware processor to reflect the opted-out nodes and edges …; , automatically marking the dedicated opt-out status field of each edge connecting the new touchpoint node to each such primary node marked as opted-out as opted-out.
However, Olmstead et al. discloses update the stored identity graph data structure to reflect the opt-out request by writing opted-out status to the dedicated opt-out field of each opted-out node and edge while retaining all touchpoint nodes, primary nodes, and edges in the distributed storage system without deletion of any touchpoint node, primary node, or edge from the identity graph data (Paragraph 77 discloses Machine learning server 204 generates, updates and stores the graph structure data including the nodes and edges);
responsive to determining the new touchpoint node connects to at least one primary node not marked as opted-out in addition to one or more primary nodes marked as opted-out, automatically marking the dedicated opt-out status field of each edge connecting the new touchpoint node to each such primary node marked as opted-out as opted-out, without marking the dedicated opt-out status field of the new touchpoint node itself as opted-out (Paragraph 53 discloses system 100 can have the ability to remove nodes and edges, such as contacts that opt-out of the system 100 or contacts that are no longer available, employed by an organization or deceased persons. In some embodiments, contacts can opt-out from the system 100. This allows users to opt-out of being part of the graph structure or redact, temporarily or non-destructively hide particular relationship links, while still being part of the system 100 overall).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing data of invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Fadli’s universal identification and Finketstein et al.’s opt-in/opt-out and Bratsman et al.’s social networking and Barak et al.’s content distribution with Olmstead et al.’s electronic communication This would have facilitated message sharing.
The Fadli reference as modified by Finketstein et al. and Bratsman et al. and Barak et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1. With respect to claim 7, Bratsman et al. teaches the system of claim 6, wherein the identity graph further comprises a plurality of household nodes, and wherein each of the plurality of household nodes is connected to at least one primary node by one of the plurality of edges (Paragraph 42 discloses user opt-outs and Paragraph 27 discloses multiple user nodes 202 or multiple concept nodes 204). The motivation to combine statement previously provided in the rejection of independent claim 6 provided above, combining the Fadli reference and the Bratsman et al. reference is applicable to dependent claim 7.
Claim(s) 8-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Bratsman et al. (US Pub. No. 20180375945) and Fadli (US Pub. No. 20170083916) in further view of Barak et al. (US Pub. No. 20180287980).
With respect to claim 8, Bratsman et al. teaches a machine for managing opt-outs for a plurality of networked computer servers utilizing distributed storage and processing the distributed storage comprising an identity graph data structure, the identity graph data structure comprising a plurality of nodes connected by a plurality of edges, the machine comprising:
receive an opt-out request from an outside source, the opt-out request comprising opt-out data from one or more sources (Paragraph 42 discloses user opt-outs);
automatically applying standardization and correction to the opt-out data received from the one or more outside sources, including normalizing the format of identity information contained in the opt-out data and resolving entity references to produce standardized opt-out data suitable for processing within the distributed storage system (Paragraph 84 discloses information from one or more third-party sources may be supplemented with relevant information in social-networking system 160. For example, event information obtained from ticketing agencies or from venues may be supplemented with information from pages associated with events in social-networking system 160);
building and maintaining, in the distributed storage system, each of the plurality of nodes and plurality of edges within the identity graph data structure (Paragraph 27 discloses The nodes and edges of social graph 200 may be stored as data objects, for example, in a data store (such as a social-graph database). Such a data store may include one or more searchable or queryable indexes of nodes or edges of social graph 200). Bratsman et al. does not disclose automatically propagating the opt-out through the identity graph data structure stored in the distributed storage system by:
automatically identifying an opted-out touchpoint node and marking the opted-out touchpoint node as opted out without deleting the opted-out touchpoint node from the distributed storage system.
However, Fadli teaches automatically propagating the opt-out through the identity graph data structure stored in the distributed storage system by:
automatically identifying an opted-out touchpoint node and marking the opted-out touchpoint node as opted out without deleting the opted-out touchpoint node from the distributed storage system (Paragraph 34 discloses identify meaningful structural relations between the first party data 122A, the third party data 123, and unstructured data and Paragraph 36 discloses a opt-out prefix);
automatically traversing the identity graph data structure along at least one edge connected to the opted-out touchpoint node to a corresponding primary node and marking the corresponding primary node as opted out without deleting the corresponding primary node from the distributed storage system; automatically traversing the identity graph data structure along at least one edge from the corresponding primary node to each of at least one connected touchpoint node other than the opted-out touchpoint node, marking each connected touchpoint node that is not connected by one of the edges to any other of the plurality of primary nodes as opted out without deleting each such connected touchpoint node from the distributed storage system, and marking each edge that connects the corresponding primary node to each connected touchpoint node that is connected by one of the edges to any other of the plurality of primary nodes as opted out without deleting each such edge from the distributed storage system, and without losing completeness or integrity of the identity graph data structure (Paragraph 33 discloses queries on the model 200 may combine both edge traversals with attribute accesses and specific structures to improve traversals. For example, the model 200 may index both the edges and the neighbors of each node).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing data of invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Bratsman et al.’s social networking with Fadli’s universal identification. This would have facilitated users opting out in a universal profile. See Fadli Paragraphs 3-18.
Bratsman et al. as modified by Fadli does not explicitly disclose upon ingestion of a new touchpoint node into the identity graph data structure, automatically evaluating, by the hardware processor, edge connections from the new touchpoint node to determine whether the new touchpoint node connects to a primary node marked as opted-out.
However, Barak et al. teaches upon ingestion of a new touchpoint node into the identity graph data structure, automatically evaluating, by the hardware processor, edge connections from the new touchpoint node to determine whether the new touchpoint node connects to a primary node marked as opted-out, and responsive to determining the new touchpoint node connects only to primary nodes marked as opted-out, automatically marking the new touchpoint node as opted-out without requiring an additional opt-out notification (Paragraph 50 discloses the social graph 300, social-networking system 260 may analyze the number and/or type of edges 306 connecting particular user nodes 302 and concept nodes 304 and Paragraph 50 discloses Identifying and targeting users may also include privacy settings (such as user opt-outs), data hashing, or data anonymization, as appropriate);
responsive to determining the new touchpoint node connects to at least one primary node not marked as opted-out in addition to one or more primary nodes marked as opted-out, automatically marking each edge connecting the new touchpoint node to each primary node marked as opted-out as opted-out, without marking the new touchpoint node itself as opted-out (Paragraphs 18-19 discloses if the message is not subject to a blocking instruction 160, the normal processing flow may proceed. For example, the message may be shared with others in a manner specified by the target user (e.g., through direct messaging, timeline posting, etc.); and
responsive to a request to generate a message using a touchpoint, automatically checking, in the distributed storage system, the opted-out status of the corresponding touchpoint node and any edge connecting the touchpoint node to a primary node associated with the message, and automatically suppressing generation of the message when the touchpoint node or the edge is marked as opted-out, without human intervention (Paragraphs 18-19 discloses if the message is not subject to a blocking instruction 160, the normal processing flow may proceed. For example, the message may be shared with others in a manner specified by the target user (e.g., through direct messaging, timeline posting, etc.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing data of invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Bratsman et al.’s social networking and Fadli’s universal identification with Barak et al.’s content distribution. This would have facilitated message sharing.
With respect to claim 9, it is rejected on grounds corresponding to above rejected claim 2, because claim 9 is substantially equivalent to claim 2.
With respect to claim 10, it is rejected on grounds corresponding to above rejected claim 3, because claim 10 is substantially equivalent to claim 3.
With respect to claim 11, it is rejected on grounds corresponding to above rejected claim 4, because claim 11 is substantially equivalent to claim 4.
The Bratsman et al. reference as modified by Fadli and Barak et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 11. With respect to claim 12, Bratsman et al. discloses the machine of claim 11, wherein the program instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the machine to, after marking the corresponding primary node as opted out without deleting the corresponding primary node, traverse one of the plurality of edges connecting the primary node to a corresponding household node, and then mark the primary node identifier for the corresponding primary node within the corresponding household node as opted out without deleting the primary node identifier for the corresponding primary node with the corresponding household node (Paragraph 42 discloses user opt-outs and Paragraph 27 discloses multiple user nodes 202 or multiple concept nodes 204).
The Bratsman et al. reference as modified by Fadli and Finketstein et al. and Barak et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 8. With respect to claim 13, Bratsman et al. discloses the machine of claim 8, wherein the program instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the machine to receive an opt-out rescission request from an outside source, the opt-out rescission request comprising opt-out rescission data (Paragraph 26 discloses the authorization server may allow users to opt in to or opt out of having their actions logged by social-networking system 160 or shared with other systems (e.g. third-party system 170), such as, for example, by setting appropriate privacy settings).
The Bratsman et al. reference as modified by Fadli and Finketstein et al. and Barak et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 8. With respect to claim 14, Bratsman et al. discloses the machine of claim 13, wherein program instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the machine to automatically identify a corresponding touchpoint node in the identity graph data structure and rescind the marking of the corresponding touchpoint node as opted out, automatically traverse the identity graph data structure along at least one edge from the corresponding touchpoint node to a corresponding primary node, and rescind the marking out the corresponding primary node, and
traverse the identity graph along at least one edge from the corresponding primary node to each connected touchpoint node other than the corresponding touchpoint node, rescind the marking at each connected touchpoint node that is not connected by an edge to any other of the plurality of primary nodes as opted out, and rescind the marking at each edge that connects the corresponding primary node to each connected touchpoint node that is connected by an edge to any other of the plurality of primary nodes as opted out (Paragraph 26 discloses the authorization server may allow users to opt in to or opt out of having their actions logged by social-networking system 160 or shared with other systems (e.g. third-party system 170), such as, for example, by setting appropriate privacy settings).
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Pub. No. 20160117347 is directed to METHOD AND SYSTEM OF USING IMAGE RECOGNITION AND GEOLOCATION SIGNAL ANALYSIS IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SOCIAL MEDIA USER IDENTITY GRAPH: [Paragraph 69] The invention provides a computer implemented method to improve the ability to search and locate user profiles on social media platforms and broaden the set of commonly used search parameters by collecting and analyzing two sources of data within public social media content that are currently not used for the purpose of social profile matching, thus moving away from a heavy reliance on email address as the primary search input. The improved search method will result in a higher match rate and the construction of a more robust and detailed social identity graph for the individual user that is posting the contents.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS E ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3562. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday 830-630.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at (571) 270-5626. 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.
/N.E.A/Examiner, Art Unit 2154
/SYED H HASAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154
