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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 02/17/2026 have been fully considered and are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented herein.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, applicant' s recitation of “communicating a message based on the message channel data matches between the plurality of users and data recipients” would have been unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art. It is unclear whether a message is transmitted between the plurality of users, or alternatively, whether a message is transmitted where the content of the message is based on attributes of the message channel data. Claims 8 and 15 are addressed by similar rationale.
Dependent claims not addressed are rejected for incorporating the deficiencies of their respective parent claims.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 1-3, 6-10, 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20090182718 to Waclawik in view of 20160285808 to Franklin in view of US 20170076300 to Cavalcanti in view of US 20170221081 to Ollikainen.
Regarding claim 1,
Waclawik teaches a computer-implemented method for exchanging message channel data between at least one of a plurality of data providers and at least one of a plurality of data recipients, the method comprising:
receiving, from one or more devices associated with the plurality of users and using at least one processor, message channel data from the plurality of users including a first population of users (¶ 12, 45, 162-167, 169-170, 176, reception of user data, e.g. e-commerce data, click data, purchasing behavior, browser info, cookie data, transaction data),
receiving, using the at least one processor, inputs from the plurality of users comprising respective parameters for providing the message channel data (¶ 5, 15, 47-48, 163, user submits opt in data parameter for providing data);
receiving, using the at least processor, inputs from the plurality of data recipients comprising the data recipients' respective parameters for receiving message channel data (¶ 15-19, 55, 163-166, input from plurality of data recipients);
identifying, using a matching engine, message channel data that matches the parameters of at least one of the plurality of users and the parameters of at least one of the data recipients (¶ 15, 44-45, 55, 163-166, matching parameters);
communicating a message based on the message channel data matches between the plurality of users and data recipients (¶ 42-45, 162-167, communicating matching data)
collecting the message channel data that was identified in the match; processing the message channel data in accordance with the parameters of the users whose parameters were identified in the match (¶ 42-45, 162-167, collecting and segmenting data identified in match according to parameters),
delivering the permitted data segments to the identified data recipients in accordance with their respective parameters (¶ 44, 166); and
Waclawik fails to teach:
the user’s parameters including permitted data segments and non-permitted data segments as indicated via input on a user interface by the plurality of users;
the processing step comprising segmenting the message channel data into the permitted data segments and the non-permitted segments based on the data providers' parameters based on the user’s parameters;
However, Franklin teaches:
the user’s parameters including permitted data segments and non-permitted data segments as indicated via input on a user interface by the plurality of users (¶ 143, user devices provide data and opt in or opt out settings for privacy purposes defining what user information may be logged);
a processing step comprising segmenting the message channel data into the permitted data segments and the non-permitted segments based on the data providers' parameters based on the user’s parameters (¶ 143, segmentation of data according to user parameters).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teachings of Franklin. The motivation to do so is that the teachings of Franklin would have been advantageous in terms of facilitating data privacy protection measures (Franklin, ¶ 143).
Waclawik fails to teach:
initiating a request for compensation of the identified users based on the identified users’ respective parameters; and transmitting the request for compensation to the user devices of the identified users.
However, Cavalcanti teaches:
initiating a request for compensation of the identified users in accordance with their respective parameters; and transmitting the request for compensation to the user devices of the identified users (¶ 32-37, request for compensation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teachings of Cavalcanti. The motivation to do so is that the teachings of Cavalcanti would have been advantageous in terms of facilitating compensation for data usage (Cavalcanti, ¶ 12-13, 15-16).
Based on Cavalcanti’s disclosure of “initiating a request for compensation of the identified users in accordance with their respective parameters; and transmitting the request for compensation to the user devices of the identified users” and Franklin’s disclosure of the users’ respective parameters including the permitted data segments and the non-permitted data segments, the prior art suggests: “initiating a request for compensation of the identified users based on the identified users’ respective parameters including the permitted data segments and the non-permitted data segments; and transmitting the request for compensation to the user devices of the identified users” as it would have been obvious to include augment Cavalcanti’s user compensation mechanisms with Franklin’s technology allowing users to limit what data they permit to be shared. The motivation to do so is that Franklin’s teachings would have been advantageous in terms of facilitating data privacy protection measures (Franklin, ¶ 143).
Waclawik fails to teach, but Ollikainen teaches: weighting the message channel data based on the first population of users (¶ 98, weighting based on population of users).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teachings of Ollikainen. The motivation to do so is that the teachings of Ollikainen would have been advantageous in terms of facilitating marketplace interactions (Ollikainen, abstract, ¶ 11, 98).
Regarding claim 2, 9,
Waclawik fails to teach but Franklin teaches:
wherein the users' parameters include at least one of: identification of a message set; identification of a content level; identification of exclusivity of the message set; identification of identifying information within the message set; level of anonymity; time period when the message data is to be available; and compensation requests for providing access to the message set (¶ 143, exclusivity, anonymity, time parameters). Motivation to include Franklin is the same as presented above.
Regarding claim 3, 10,
Waclawik fails to teach but Franklin teaches:
wherein the processing step further includes aggregating statistics regarding the message channel data and/or removing personally identifiable information or other information from the message channel data to ensure that the message channel data delivered to the identified data recipients is in compliance with the parameters set by the identified users (¶ 143, anonymization of user data). Motivation to include Franklin is the same as presented above.
Regarding claim 6, 13,
Waclawik teaches:
wherein the message channel data is any combination of e-mail, short message service (SMS) text messaging, instant messaging (IM), social networking messaging, and multimedia message service (MMS) messaging (¶ 15, 44-45, 55, 163-166).
Regarding claim 7, 14,
Waclawik fails to teach but Cavalcanti teaches:
wherein the step of communicating the match to the data recipients comprises sending a notification to a user device (¶ 32-37, negotiation of data exchange including parameters and communication of acknowledgements). Motivation to include Cavalcanti is the same as presented above.
Claim 8 is addressed similar rationale as claim 1.
Claim 5, 12, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waclawik, Franklin, Cavalcanti, Ollikainen and further in view of US 20090112750 to Boutilier.
Regarding claim 5, 12
Waclawik fails to teach but Cavalcanti teaches:
wherein the identifying step comprises using a method to determine an optimal set of matches between the at least one data recipients and the at least one data users (¶ 32-37, matching request for compensation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teachings of Cavalcanti. The motivation to do so is that the teachings of Cavalcanti would have been advantageous in terms of facilitating compensation for data usage (Cavalcanti, ¶ 12-13, 15-16).
Although Cavalcanti discloses a marketplace for users to bid on resources Cavalcant fails to disclose the use of a combinatorial auction. Nevertheless, Boutilier disclose the use of a combinatorial auction (abstract, ¶ 7-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teachings of Boutilier. The motivation to do so is that the teachings of Boutilier would have been advantageous in terms of facilitating the sale of combinations of items (Boutilier, ¶ 6, 10).
Claim 4, 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waclawik, Franklin, Cavalcanti, and Ollikainen in view of US 20230036623 to Todasco.
Regarding claim 4, 11,
Waclawik fails to teach
wherein the identifying step comprises considering data recipients' respective parameters one by one in sequence, and upon a match between a data recipient’s parameters and the at least one user’s parameters, the message channel data associated with the at least one data provider identified from the match is removed.
However, Todasco teaches:
wherein the identifying step comprises considering data recipients' respective parameters one by one in sequence, and upon a match between a data recipient’s parameters and the at least one user’s parameters, the message channel data associated with the at least one data provider identified from the match is removed (¶ 74, scrubbing PII)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teachings of Todasco. The motivation to do so is that the teachings of Todasco would have been advantageous in terms of limiting data based on privacy laws or preferences (Todasco, ¶ 74).
Claim 15-17, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waclawik, Franklin, Cavalcanti in view of US 20230115140 to Albero, in view of Ollikainen.
Regarding claim 15,
Waclawik teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions, the instructions for exchanging message channel data between at least one of a plurality of users and at least one of a plurality of data recipient, the instructions when executed by a computer system cause the computer system to perform a method, the method comprising:
receiving, from one or more devices associated with the plurality of users and using at least one processor, message channel data from the plurality of users and a first population of users (¶ 12, 45, 162-167, 169-170, 176, reception of user data, e.g. e-commerce data, click data, purchasing behavior, browser info, cookie data, transaction data),
receiving, using the at least one processor, inputs from the plurality of users comprising respective parameters for providing the message channel data (¶ 5, 15, 47-48, 163, user submits opt in data parameter for providing data);
receiving, using the at least processor, inputs from the plurality of data recipients comprising the data recipients' respective parameters for receiving message channel data (¶ 15-19, 55, 163-166, input from plurality of data recipients);
identifying, using a matching engine, message channel data that matches the parameters of at least one of the plurality of users and the parameters of at least one of the data recipients (¶ 15, 44-45, 55, 163-166, matching parameters);
communicating a message based on the message channel data matches between the plurality of users and data recipients (¶ 42-45, 162-167, communicating matching data)
collecting the message channel data that was identified in the match; processing the message channel data in accordance with the parameters of the users whose parameters were identified in the match (¶ 42-45, 162-167, collecting and segmenting data identified in match according to parameters),
delivering the permitted data segments to the identified data recipients in accordance with their respective parameters (¶ 44, 166); and
Waclawik fails to teach:
the user’s parameters including permitted data segments and non-permitted data segments;
the processing step comprising segmenting the message channel data into the permitted data segments and the non-permitted segments based on the data providers' parameters based on the user’s parameters;
However, Franklin teaches:
the user’s parameters including permitted data segments and non-permitted data segments (¶ 143, user devices provide data and opt in or opt out settings for privacy purposes defining what user information may be logged);
a processing step comprising segmenting the message channel data into the permitted data segments and the non-permitted segments based on the data providers' parameters based on the user’s parameters (¶ 143, segmentation of data according to user parameters).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teachings of Franklin. The motivation to do so is that the teachings of Franklin would have been advantageous in terms of facilitating data privacy protection measures (Franklin, ¶ 143).
Waclawik fails to teach:
initiating a request for compensation of the identified users based on the identified users’ respective parameters; and transmitting the request for compensation to the user devices of the identified users.
However, Cavalcanti teaches:
initiating a request for compensation of the identified users in accordance with their respective parameters; and transmitting the request for compensation to the user devices of the identified users (¶ 32-37, request for compensation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teachings of Cavalcanti. The motivation to do so is that the teachings of Cavalcanti would have been advantageous in terms of facilitating compensation for data usage (Cavalcanti, ¶ 12-13, 15-16).
Based on Cavalcanti’s disclosure of “initiating a request for compensation of the identified users in accordance with their respective parameters; and transmitting the request for compensation to the user devices of the identified users” and Franklin’s disclosure of the users’ respective parameters including the permitted data segments and the non-permitted data segments, the prior art suggests: “initiating a request for compensation of the identified users based on the identified users’ respective parameters including the permitted data segments and the non-permitted data segments; and transmitting the request for compensation to the user devices of the identified users” as it would have been obvious to include augment Cavalcanti’s user compensation mechanisms with Franklin’s technology allowing users to limit what data they permit to be shared. The motivation to do so is that Franklin’s teachings would have been advantageous in terms of facilitating data privacy protection measures (Franklin, ¶ 143).
Waclawik fails to teach the user’s parameters including permitted data segments and non-permitted data segments, the data segments comprising a subject header, body, and sender of an email. However, Albero teaches user’s parameters including permitted data segments and non-permitted data segments, the data segments comprising a subject header, body, and sender of an email (¶ 61, 64).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teachings of . The motivation to do so is that the teachings of Albero would have been advantageous in terms of facilitating control of access to electronic mail (Albero, abstract, ¶ 6, 61).
Waclawik fails to teach, but Ollikainen teaches: weighting the message channel data based on the first population of users (¶ 98, weighting based on population of users).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teachings of Ollikainen. The motivation to do so is that the teachings of Ollikainen would have been advantageous in terms of facilitating marketplace interactions (Ollikainen, abstract, ¶ 11, 98).
Regarding claim 16,
Waclawik fails to teach but Franklin teaches:
wherein the users' parameters include at least one of: identification of a message set; identification of a content level; identification of exclusivity of the message set; identification of identifying information within the message set; level of anonymity; time period when the message data is to be available; and compensation requests for providing access to the message set (¶ 143, exclusivity, anonymity, time parameters). Motivation to include Franklin is the same as presented above.
Regarding claim 17,
Waclawik fails to teach but Franklin teaches:
wherein the processing step further includes aggregating statistics regarding the message channel data and/or removing personally identifiable information or other information from the message channel data to ensure that the message channel data delivered to the identified data recipients is in compliance with the parameters set by the identified users (¶ 143, anonymization of user data). Motivation to include Franklin is the same as presented above.
Regarding claim 20,
Waclawik teaches:
wherein the message channel data is any combination of e-mail, short message service (SMS) text messaging, instant messaging (IM), social networking messaging, and multimedia message service (MMS) messaging (¶ 15, 44-45, 55, 163-166).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waclawik, Franklin, Cavalcanti, Albero, and Ollikainen in view of US 20230036623 to Todasco.
Regarding claim 18,
Waclawik fails to teach
wherein the identifying step comprises considering data recipients' respective parameters one by one in sequence, and upon a match between a data recipient’s parameters and the at least one user’s parameters, the message channel data associated with the at least one data provider identified from the match is removed.
However, Todasco teaches:
wherein the identifying step comprises considering data recipients' respective parameters one by one in sequence, and upon a match between a data recipient’s parameters and the at least one user’s parameters, the message channel data associated with the at least one data provider identified from the match is removed (¶ 74, scrubbing PII)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teachings of Todasco. The motivation to do so is that the teachings of Todasco would have been advantageous in terms of limiting data based on privacy laws or preferences (Todasco, ¶ 74).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waclawik, Franklin, Cavalcanti, Albero, and Ollikainen in view of US 20090112750 to Boutilier.
Regarding claim 19,
Waclawik fails to teach but Cavalcanti teaches:
wherein the identifying step comprises using a method to determine an optimal set of matches between the at least one data recipients and the at least one data users (¶ 32-37, matching request for compensation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teachings of Cavalcanti. The motivation to do so is that the teachings of Cavalcanti would have been advantageous in terms of facilitating compensation for data usage (Cavalcanti, ¶ 12-13, 15-16).
Although Cavalcanti discloses a marketplace for users to bid on resources Cavalcant fails to disclose the use of a combinatorial auction. Nevertheless, Boutilier disclose the use of a combinatorial auction (abstract, ¶ 7-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teachings of Boutilier. The motivation to do so is that the teachings of Boutilier would have been advantageous in terms of facilitating the sale of combinations of items (Boutilier, ¶ 6, 10).
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 extension fee 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 RYAN J JAKOVAC whose telephone number is (571)270-5003. The examiner can normally be reached on 8-4 PM EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Oscar A. Louie can be reached on 572-270-1684. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RYAN J JAKOVAC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445
Prosecution Insights