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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 02, 2025 has been entered.
In response to the application filed on December 02, 2025, claims 1-14 are now pending for examination in the application.
Response to Arguments
This office action is in response to amendment filed 12/02/2025. 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 Bratsman et al. (US Pub. No. 20180375945) and Finketstein et al. (US Pub. No. 20190342336) in further view of Barak et al. (US Pub. No. 20180287980) and claims 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) and Finketstein et al. (US Pub. No. 20190342336) in further view of Barak et al. (US Pub. No. 20180287980). The Barak et al. reference has been added to address the amendment of reallocating, based on sizes of the portion of the data files loaded to the multiple processors of a same processer group, among the plural processor groups, the loaded corresponding portion of the plurality of data files to the same group to reduce a deviation in size of the corresponding portion of the plurality of data files.
Applicant’s arguments:
In regards to claim 1 on Page(s) 17, applicant argues “Claims do not recite mental processes when they cannot be performed in the mind. The continuous, automatic evaluation and marking of newly ingested data across such a massive, distributed data structure is impossible to perform mentally. Furthermore, the newly added message suppression limitation requires the system to intercept message generation requests, automatically check opt-out status in the graph database, and suppress message generation when opted-out status is detected. This real-time interception and suppression of automated message generation is a machine function that cannot be performed by a human mind.”
Examiner’s Reply:
In processing a model there is a “Determining a touchpoint connection” step that has to be performed in the human mind. Determining and evaluating 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) 18, applicant argues “Data Integrity Improvement: The claims enable identity graphs to honor opt-out requests while maintaining completeness or integrity: a technological advancement over deletion-based approaches. Automatic Extension Improvement: The claims enable complete and continual opting out by automatically applying opt-out status to newly ingested data, which is a technological advancement over prior methods that required explicit requests for each new touchpoint. Real-Time Compliance Improvement: The claims integrate opt-out checking into the message generation pipeline, providing automatic compliance that makes compliance with opt-out requests automatic.”
Examiner’s Reply:
Determining the opt-out status of nodes 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).
Applicant’s arguments:
In regards to claim 1 on Page(s) 20, applicant argues “In summary, the amended claims are not directed to an abstract idea because they recite: (1) automatic propagation of opt-out status to newly- ingested data, which is an ongoing automated process that cannot be performed mentally; and (2) message suppression based on opt-out status, which is a machine function producing tangible real-world results. Even if the claims recited an abstract idea, they are integrated into practical applications because they improve computer technology (data integrity, automatic extension, real-time compliance), produce concrete results (message suppression), and recite a particular machine architecture. The ordered combination of elements, which includes automatic propagation and integrated message suppression, represents an inventive concept that provides "significantly more.”
Examiner’s Reply:
Managing an opt-out status 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 INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Claims 8-14 contain limitations invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph as detailed in the following:
Claim 8:
“a source ingestion processor…”
“a hygiene processor…”
“a graph composition processor…”
“a connected components processor…”
“a connected components suppression processor…”
Claim 12:
“the connected components processor…”
“the connected components suppression processor…”
Claim 13:
“a source ingestion processor…”
Claim 14:
“the connected components processor…”
“the connected components suppression processor…”
has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112 (f), or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 sixth paragraph, because it uses a generic placeholder “processor” coupled with functional languages without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function and equivalents thereof. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claims 8-14 have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: NONE. The specification fails to show the corresponding structures of the components.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 8-14 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Claims 8-14 are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (see above). Therefore Claim(s) 8 and 12-14 contain placeholders that require corresponding structure(s). It is unclear whether the recited structure, material, or acts in these claims are sufficient for performing the claimed function because the Specification is unclear about the corresponding structure(s). The figures do not provide indications of corresponding structure(s).
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Dependent claims 9-11 is/are also rejected for inheriting the deficiencies of the independent claims from which they depend on.
In the independent claims , the use of “wherein …” limitations at the end of the independent claims recite intended results of the claims invention which makes the claims indefinite.
Claims 2-5, 7 and 9-14 are rejected for incorporating the same indefiniteness of their respective base claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims 1, 6, and 8 contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. There is no support for “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 ….”.
Dependent claims 2-5, 7, and 9-14 is/are also rejected for inheriting the deficiencies of the independent claims from which they depend on.
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 by (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):
identifying with the hardware processor a corresponding touchpoint node in the identity graph data structure, and opting out marking the corresponding touchpoint node as opted-out while maintaining the 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 identify a node);
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 corresponding primary node as opted out while maintaining the corresponding primary 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 traverse a graph);
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, opting out each connected touchpoint node that is not connected by an edge to any other of the plurality of primary nodes, and 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 (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
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 (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 a request to generate a message using a touchpoint, checking, by the hardware processor, 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 checking an opt out status), and
suppressing generation of the message when the touchpoint node or the edge is marked 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 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 (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 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) 6 recites the following limitations directed towards a Mental Processes:
when executed by the one or more processors, 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 touchpoint node opt-out field, each of the plurality of primary nodes comprises a primary node opt-out field, 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 (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 opting out marking the opt-out field 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 identifying a touchpoint);
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 opting out marking the opt-out field 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 traversing a graph);
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, marking the 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 opting out marking the 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 (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 without loss of 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 traversing 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 a request to generate a message using a touchpoint, checking, by the hardware processor, 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 checking an opt out status), and
suppressing generation of the message when the touchpoint node or the edge is marked 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 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); and
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: (i.e., as a generic processor/component performing a generic computer function);
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:
a hygiene processor in electronic communication with the source ingestion processor and executing program instructions stored on the distributed storage coupled to the hygiene processor, the hygiene processor configured to apply standardization and correction to the opt-out data (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 standardizing opt-out data);
a graph composition processor in electronic communication with the hygiene processor and executing program instructions stored on the distributed storage coupled to the hygiene processor, the graph composition processor configured to build and maintain 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 building a graph);
a connected components processor and a connected components suppression processor in communication with the graph composition processor and executing program instructions stored on the distributed storage coupled to the connected components processor and the connected components suppression processor, the connected components processor and the connected components suppression processor configured to collectively propagate the opt-out through the identity graph data structure by identifying an opted-out touchpoint node and marking the corresponding touchpoint node as opted out without deleting the corresponding touchpoint node, 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, traversing the identity graph along at least one edge from the corresponding primary node to each of at least one connected touchpoint node other than the corresponding touchpoint node and marking each of the at least one 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 of the at least one connected touchpoint node that is not connected by one of the edges to any other of the plurality of primary nodes, and marking each of the edges 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 of the edges 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 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 a touchpoint as opted-out).
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:
a source ingestion processor and executing program instructions stored on the distributed storage coupled to the source ingestion processor, and configured to receive an opt-out request from an outside source, the opt-out request comprising opt-out data (recites insignificant extra solution activity of receiving data);
wherein the graph composition processor is further configured to, 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);
a message generation processor in communication with the connected components suppression processor and executing program instructions stored on the distributed storage, the message generation processor configured to, responsive to a request to generate a message using a touchpoint, checking, by the hardware processor, 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 checking an opt out status), and
suppressing generation of the message when the touchpoint node or the edge is marked 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 suppressing a message).
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 as opted out comprises the step of opting out the touchpoint node identifier 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 the connected components processor and connected components suppression processor are further configured to mark the touchpoint node identifier of such 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 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 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 connected components processor and connected components suppression processor are further configured to, after marking the corresponding primary node as opted out without deleting the corresponding primary node, traversing one of the plurality of edges connecting the primary node to a corresponding household node, and then marking 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 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 source ingestion processor is further configured 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 connected components processor and connected components suppression processor are further configured to identify a corresponding touchpoint node in the identity graph data structure and rescind the marking of the corresponding touchpoint node as opted out, traverse the identity graph 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 Bratsman et al. (US Pub. No. 20180375945) and Finketstein et al. (US Pub. No. 20190342336) in further view of Barak et al. (US Pub. No. 20180287980).
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 (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 corresponding touchpoint node as opted-out while maintaining the corresponding touchpoint node in the identity graph data structure (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 corresponding primary node as opted out while maintaining the corresponding primary node in 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). 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);
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 (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 with Finketstein et al. This would have facilitated users opting out in a universal profile. See Finketstein et al. Paragraphs 1-4.
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, opting out each connected touchpoint node that is not connected by an edge to any other of the plurality of primary nodes, and 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.
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, opting out each connected touchpoint node that is not connected by an edge to any other of the plurality of primary nodes, and 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 (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 and Finketstein et al. with Bratsman et al. This would have facilitated users opting out in a universal profile. See Bratsman et al. Paragraphs 3-6.
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.
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, checking, by the hardware processor, 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 suppressing generation of the message when the touchpoint node or the edge is marked 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.). 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 and Finketstein et al. and Bratsman et al. with Barak et al. This would have facilitated users opting out in a universal profile. See Barak et al. Paragraphs 6-7.
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 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 unique to that touchpoint node with respect to each other touchpoint node, and wherein the step of opting out any of the plurality of touchpoint nodes comprises the step of opting out the touchpoint node identifier of such touchpoint node house (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. 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. 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. 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 touchpoint node opt-out field, each of the plurality of primary nodes comprises a primary node opt-out field, 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 (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 marking the opt-out field of the corresponding touchpoint node as opted out (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);
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 marking the opt-out field of the corresponding primary node as opted out (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 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);
update the stored identity graph data structure to reflect the opt-out request without loss of completeness or integrity of 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 with Finketstein et al. This would have facilitated users opting out in a universal profile. See Finketstein et al. Paragraphs 1-4.
Fadli as modified by Finketstein et al. does not disclose 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, marking the 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 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.
However, Bratsman et al. teaches 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, marking the 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 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 (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). Bratsman et al. does not disclose update the stored identity graph data structure to reflect the opt-out request without deleting any of the plurality of touchpoint nodes, plurality of primary nodes, and plurality of edges connecting touchpoint nodes to primary nodes, wherein the system enables management of opt-outs across the identity graph data structure in a manner that would be impractical to perform manually while maintaining completeness and integrity of the identity graph data structure (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 and Finketstein et al. with Bratsman et al. This would have facilitated users opting out in a universal profile. See Bratsman et al. Paragraphs 3-6.
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.
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, checking, by the hardware processor, 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 suppressing generation of the message when the touchpoint node or the edge is marked 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.). 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 and Finketstein et al. and Bratsman et al. with Barak et al. This would have facilitated users opting out in a universal profile. See Barak et al. Paragraphs 6-7.
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) and Finketstein et al. (US Pub. No. 20190342336) 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:
a source ingestion processor configured to receive an opt-out request from an outside source, the opt-out request comprising opt-out data (Paragraph 42 discloses user opt-outs);
a hardware-implemented hygiene processor in electronic communication with the source ingestion processor and executing program instructions stored on the distributed storage coupled to the hygiene processor, the hygiene processor configured to apply standardization and correction to the opt-out data (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);
a hardware-implemented graph composition processor in electronic communication with the hygiene processor and executing program instructions stored on the distributed storage coupled to the hygiene processor, the graph composition processor configured to build and maintain 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 a connected components processor and a connected components suppression processor in communication with the graph composition processor, the connected components processor and the connected components suppression processor configured to collectively propagate the opt-out through the identity graph data structure by identifying an opted-out touchpoint node and opting out marking the corresponding touchpoint node as opted out without deleting the corresponding touchpoint node, traversing the identity graph data structure along at least one edge connected to the opted-out touchpoint node to a corresponding primary node and opting out marking but not deleting the corresponding primary node as opted out without deleting the corresponding primary node, traversing the identity graph along at least one edge from the corresponding primary node to each of at least one connected touchpoint node other than the corresponding touchpoint node and opting out but not deleting marking each of the at least one 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 of the at least one connected touchpoint node that is not connected by one of the edges to any other of the plurality of primary nodes, and opting out but not deleting marking each of the edges 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 of the edges 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.
However, Fadli teaches a hardware-implemented connected components processor and a hardware-implemented connected components suppression processor in communication with the graph composition processor and executing program instructions stored on the distributed storage coupled to the connected components processor and the connected components suppression processor, the connected components processor and the connected components suppression processor configured to collectively propagate the opt-out through the identity graph data structure by identifying an opted-out touchpoint node and marking the corresponding touchpoint node as opted out without deleting the corresponding touchpoint node, 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, traversing the identity graph along at least one edge from the corresponding primary node to each of at least one connected touchpoint node other than the corresponding touchpoint node and marking each of the at least one 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 of the at least one connected touchpoint node that is not connected by one of the edges to any other of the plurality of primary nodes, and marking each of the edges 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 of the edges 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
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. with Fadli. 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 without losing completeness or integrity of the identity graph data structure.
However, Finketstein et al. teaches without losing completeness or integrity of 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 Bratsman et al. and Fadli with Finketstein et al. This would have facilitated users opting out in a universal profile. See Finketstein et al. Paragraphs 1-4.
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.
However, Barak et al. teaches wherein the graph composition processor is further configured to 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);
a message generation processor in communication with the connected components suppression processor and executing program instructions stored on the distributed storage, the message generation processor configured to, responsive to a request to generate a message using a touchpoint, checking, by the hardware processor, 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 suppressing generation of the message when the touchpoint node or the edge is marked 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.). 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 and Finketstein et al. and Bratsman et al. with Barak et al. This would have facilitated users opting out in a universal profile. See Barak et al. Paragraphs 6-7.
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 Finketstein et al. 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 connected components processor and connected components suppression processor are further configured to, after marking the corresponding primary node as opted out without deleting the corresponding primary node, traversing one of the plurality of edges connecting the primary node to a corresponding household node, and then marking the primary node identifier for the corresponding primary node within 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 source ingestion processor is further configured 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 the connected components processor and connected components suppression processor are further configured to identify a corresponding touchpoint node in the identity graph data structure and rescind the marking of the corresponding touchpoint node as opted out, traverse the identity graph 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
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.
/BORIS GORNEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2154
/N.E.A/Examiner, Art Unit 2154