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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/30/2022 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
Independent claim 19 and dependent claim 20 recite “A computer program product for processing messages, the computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by a computer system to cause the computer system to perform a method...” (emphasis added). Applicant’s own originally filed disclosure disavows “computer readable storage medium” from the following, “A computer readable storage medium, as that term is used in the present disclosure, is not to be construed as storage in the form of transitory signals per se, such as radio waves or other freely propagating electromagnetic waves, electromagnetic waves propagating through a waveguide, light pulses passing through a fiber optic cable, electrical signals communicated through a wire, and/or other transmission media” in paragraph [0021]. Therefore, the Examiner will exclude transitory signals per se and other transitory storage mediums from the broadest reasonable interpretation of “computer readable storage medium” as claimed.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“A computer system comprising: comprising a number of processor units, wherein the number of processor units executes program instructions to: parse a message to identify key value pairs for confidential information in the message; create a redacted message in which values in the key value pairs identified for the confidential information are replaced with plaintext tags; store the key value pairs in a secure database; and store the redacted message in a plaintext database.” in claim 10.
“wherein the number of processor units executes the program instructions to: verify a requestor requesting access to the message is authorized to access the message in response to a user request from the requestor for the message; and recreate the message using the redacted message and the key value pairs.” in claim 11.
“the number of processor units executes the program instructions to: replace the plaintext tags with values from the key value pairs corresponding to the plaintext tags.” in claim 12.
“the number of processor units executes the program instructions to: replace a number of the plaintext tags with a number of the values from the key value pairs corresponding to the number of the plaintext tags.” in claim 13.
“the number of processor units executes the program instructions to: store the key value pairs with a message identifier for the message.” in claim 15.
“the number of processor units executes the program instructions to: update a user profile with the number of key value pairs that match user details for the user profile stored in a profile database that is security compliant; and create the user profile using the number of key value pairs to create the user details in response to the user profile with the user details matching the number of key value pairs being absent in the profile database.” in claim 16.
“the number of processor units executes the program instructions to: purge a number of the key value pairs from the secure database using a policy.” in claim 18.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-20 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 claim(s) contains 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.
Regarding Claims 1, 10, and 19:
Independent claims 1, 10, and 19 recite “parse a message to identify key value pairs for confidential information in the message”. The limitations in question do not satisfy the written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph. The specification does not describe the limitation in sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the applicant had possession of the claimed invention. The originally filed disclosure is silent with regard to how the inventor intended to have the claimed invention parse a message to identify key value pair for confidential information in the message. The originally filed disclosure only contains repetitions of claim language and descriptions of intended results of how the claimed invention preferably parses out the confidential information and identifies key-value pairs for the parsed pieces of confidential information without disclosing how the inventor intended to achieve the desired result. As an example, Figure 2 describes data manager “210”, which comprises a black-box implementation that can be implemented in software or hardware, that “parses message 204 to identify key value pairs 218 for confidential information 221 in the message 204. Data manager 210 creates redacted message 220 using key value pairs 218 identified for message 204.” (see original paragraph [0052]) and also accomplishes the desired result of “Computer system 208 can be configured to perform at least one of the steps, operations, or actions described in the different illustrative examples using software, hardware, firmware or a combination thereof. As a result, computer system 208 operates as a special purpose computer system in which data manager 210 in computer system 208 enables processing messages in a more secure fashion as compared to current techniques. The different illustrative examples can process messages that may contain unexpected confidential information. In particular, data manager 210 transforms computer system 208 into a special purpose computer system as compared to currently available general computer systems that do not have data manager 210.” (see original paragraph [0068]) without actually disclosing how the inventor intended to achieve the desired result(s).
In MPEP 2161.01, "computer-implemented functional claim language must still be evaluated for sufficient disclosure under the written description". And MPEP 2161.01(I) "generic claim language in the original disclosure does not satisfy the written description requirement if it fails to support the scope of the genus claimed." For computer-implemented inventions, the determination of the sufficiency of disclosure will require an inquiry into the sufficiency of both the disclosed hardware and the disclosed software due to the interrelationship and interdependence of computer hardware and software. The critical inquiry is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.
As in MPEP 2161.01 (I), "The description requirement of the patent statute requires a description of an invention, not an indication of a result that one might achieve if one made that invention." It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See, e.g., Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 681-683, 114 USPQ2d 1349, 1356, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
AS in MPEP 2161.01 “For instance, generic claim language in the original disclosure does not satisfy the written description requirement if it fails to support the scope of the genus claimed. Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1349-50, 94 USPQ2d at 1171 ("[A]n adequate written description of a claimed genus requires more than a generic statement of an invention’s boundaries.") (citing Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1405-06); Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 968, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1616 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (holding that generic claim language appearing in ipsis verbis in the original specification did not satisfy the written description requirement because it failed to support the scope of the genus claimed); Fiers v. Revel, 984 F.2d 1164, 1170, 25 USPQ2d 1601, 1606 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (rejecting the argument that "only similar language in the specification or original claims is necessary to satisfy the written description requirement").”
“The Federal Circuit has explained that a specification cannot always support expansive claim language and satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112 "merely by clearly describing one embodiment of the thing claimed." LizardTech v. Earth Resource Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1346, 76 USPQ2d 1731, 1733 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The issue is whether a person skilled in the art would understand applicant to have invented, and been in possession of, the invention as broadly claimed. In LizardTech, claims to a generic method of making a seamless discrete wavelet transformation (DWT) were held invalid under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the specification taught only one particular method for making a seamless DWT and there was no evidence that the specification contemplated a more generic method. "[T]he description of one method for creating a seamless DWT does not entitle the inventor . . . to claim any and all means for achieving that objective." LizardTech, 424 F.3d at 1346, 76 USPQ2d at 1733.”
Regarding Claims 7 and 16:
Dependent claims 7 and 16 recite “a profile database that is security compliant”. The limitations in question do not satisfy the written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph. The specification does not describe the limitation in sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the applicant had possession of the claimed invention. The disclosure is silent with respect to how the inventor intended to have in possession a profile database that is “security compliant” or what makes a database “security compliant”, other than stating that the profiles “can be stored in profile database 236 that is security compliant. Profile database 236 may have the same level of security or a different level of security as compared to secure database 228 and temporary secure database 217 depending on the particular rules for managing information and profile database 236” (see paragraph [0062] of the originally filed disclosure). It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See, e.g., Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 681-683, 114 USPQ2d 1349, 1356, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The dependent claims fall together accordingly.
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 7, 8, and 10-18 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “security compliant” in claims 7 and 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “security compliant” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The originally filed disclosure is silent with respect to what would make a profile database “security compliant” and there is no way for one of ordinary skill in the art to ascertain what the scope of “security compliant” comprises.
Claim limitation “wherein the number of keys in the number of key value pairs are used” in claims 8 and 17 is unclear as to what being “used” means in the context of key value pairs. Furthermore, the recited function does not follow from the structure recited in the claim, so it is unclear whether the function requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the “device” in a certain manner. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to draw a clear boundary between what is and is not covered by the claim. See MPEP 2173.05(g) for more information.
Claim limitation “parse a message to identify key value pairs for confidential information in the message” in independent claim 10 invokes 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. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. For a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). See Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. Verisign. Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1367, 88 USPQ2d 1751, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 2008). See also In re Aoyama, 656 F.3d 1293, 1297, 99 USPQ2d 1936, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[W]hen the disclosed structure is a computer programmed to carry out an algorithm, ‘the disclosed structure is not the general purpose computer, but rather that special purpose computer programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm.’") (quoting WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1349, 51 USPQ2d 1385, 1391 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). 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.
The dependent claims fall together accordingly.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lindsay; Walter Hughes (US Publication No. US 2022/0067206 A1) hereinafter Lindsay.
Regarding Claims 1, 10, and 19:
Claim 10. Lindsay discloses a computer system comprising: comprising a number of processor units, wherein the number of processor units executes program instructions to (Lindsay [0217-0224]): parse a message to identify key value pairs for confidential information in the message (Lindsay [0162-0165]); create a redacted message in which values in the key value pairs identified for the confidential information are replaced with plaintext tags (Lindsay Fig. 3 tokenized sensitive data and Fig. 4-6 sensitive data tokenized; [0070] tokenizes sensitive values); store the key value pairs in a secure database (Lindsay [0045-0046] token-value pair is stored in a secure data vault, the tokenized data is used elsewhere/outside the tokenization system that generated it; [0049] “In vault-based tokenization, sensitive data values in data files or data records are replaced with surrogate values or “tokens” that can be used in place of the original, real values and the original values are encrypted and stored (e.g., with the tokens as token-value pairs) in a secure data vault.”); and store the redacted message in a plaintext database (Lindsay [0071] “The tokenization system returns the anonymized data to the data processing application and the data processing application, in turn, uses the tokens in the anonymized data to process the record”; [0080] the token-value pair is placed in a secure data vault and the tokenized data and token are returned to the requestor, and “the token can flow to one or more downstream systems or computing facilities, such as a loyalty program, rewards program, analytics, marketing application, database, and so on”).
Claim 1 and 19 recite substantially the same content and are therefore rejected under the same rationales. Lindsay further discloses A computer implemented method (Lindsay Figure 4, [0221], [0223-0224]), a computer program product for processing messages, the computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by a computer system to cause the computer system to perform a method (Lindsay [0217-0226]).
Regarding Claims 2, 11, and 20:
Claim 11. Lindsay further discloses the computer system of claim 10, wherein the number of processor units executes the program instructions to (Lindsay [0217-0224]): verify a requestor requesting access to the message is authorized to access the message in response to a user request from the requestor for the message (Lindsay Fig. 5 real values only revealed to authorized users; [0161-0162] authorized parties recover the original content from the tokenized content; [0078]); and recreate the message using the redacted message and the key value pairs (Lindsay Fig. 7, [0083] “In some embodiments, the reveal operation can include searching (e.g., querying the secure data vault maintained by or otherwise accessible by the tokenization system) the anonymized version of the single field of data, file, record, or document, identifying the corresponding token in the anonymized version of the single field of data, file, record, or document, and retrieving the value of interest from the secure data vault using the corresponding token. The reveal operation produces a detokenized version of the anonymized version of the single field of data, file, record, or document. The tokenization system can then return or otherwise communicate the detokenized version of the anonymized version of the single field of data, file, record, or document to the first client computing system or to the second client computing system”).
Claim 2 and 20 recite substantially the same content and are therefore rejected under the same rationales.
Regarding Claims 3 and 12:
Claim 12. Lindsay further discloses the computer system of claim 11 (Lindsay [0217-0224]), wherein in recreating the message using the redacted message and the key value pairs, the number of processor units executes the program instructions to: replace the plaintext tags with values from the key value pairs corresponding to the plaintext tags (Lindsay Fig. 7, [0083] “In some embodiments, the reveal operation can include searching (e.g., querying the secure data vault maintained by or otherwise accessible by the tokenization system) the anonymized version of the single field of data, file, record, or document, identifying the corresponding token in the anonymized version of the single field of data, file, record, or document, and retrieving the value of interest from the secure data vault using the corresponding token. The reveal operation produces a detokenized version of the anonymized version of the single field of data, file, record, or document. The tokenization system can then return or otherwise communicate the detokenized version of the anonymized version of the single field of data, file, record, or document to the first client computing system or to the second client computing system”).
Claim 3 recites substantially the same content and is therefore rejected under the same rationales.
Regarding Claims 4 and 13:
Claim 13. Lindsay further discloses the computer system of claim 11 (Lindsay [0217-0224]), wherein in recreating the message using the redacted message and the key value pairs, the number of processor units executes the program instructions to: replace a number of the plaintext tags with a number of the values from the key value pairs corresponding to the number of the plaintext tags (Lindsay Fig. 7, [0083] “In some embodiments, the reveal operation can include searching (e.g., querying the secure data vault maintained by or otherwise accessible by the tokenization system) the anonymized version of the single field of data, file, record, or document, identifying the corresponding token in the anonymized version of the single field of data, file, record, or document, and retrieving the value of interest from the secure data vault using the corresponding token. The reveal operation produces a detokenized version of the anonymized version of the single field of data, file, record, or document. The tokenization system can then return or otherwise communicate the detokenized version of the anonymized version of the single field of data, file, record, or document to the first client computing system or to the second client computing system”; [0093] different token vaults may be used and do not need to coordinate activities).
Claim 4 recites substantially the same content and is therefore rejected under the same rationales.
Regarding Claims 5 and 14:
Claim 14. Lindsay further discloses the computer system of claim 13 (Lindsay [0217-0224]), wherein the number of the plaintext tags replaced with the number of the values is selected by at least one of a user input selecting the number of the plaintext tags, user permissions, or a geographic location of a user (Lindsay [0078] and authorized user may request the revealed original values; [0180] user-selected via user interface redaction explicitly disclosed, [0188] invention may be used by AI or human user, [0097] revealing the value of a token is dependent upon geographic region).
Claim 5 recites substantially the same content and is therefore rejected under the same rationales.
Regarding Claims 6 and 15:
Claim 15. Lindsay further discloses the computer system of claim 10 (Lindsay [0217-0224]), wherein in storing the key value pairs in a secure database, the number of processor units executes the program instructions to: store the key value pairs with a message identifier for the message (Lindsay [0071]; [0097] record-specific token takes record identifier as a part of the stored tuple).
Claim 6 recites substantially the same content and is therefore rejected under the same rationales.
Regarding Claims 7 and 16:
Claim 16. Lindsay further discloses the computer system of claim 10, wherein the number of processor units executes the program instructions to (Lindsay [0217-0224]): update a user profile with the number of key value pairs that match user details for the user profile stored in a profile database that is security compliant (Lindsay Fig. 4, [0069], [0216] embodiment disclosed where two companies merge and both retailers have shared customers so the invention imports them into a single record/token to retain the history; [0213] GDPR compliance); and create the user profile using the number of key value pairs to create the user details in response to the user profile with the user details matching the number of key value pairs being absent in the profile database (Lindsay Fig. 4, [0069], [0216] embodiment disclosed where two companies merge and both retailers have shared customers so the invention could additionally or alternatively generate a separate reference token “marketing token” in the consolidated solution to attach to the customer’s purchase history).
Claim 7 recites substantially the same content and is therefore rejected under the same rationales.
Regarding Claims 8 and 17:
Claim 17. Lindsay further discloses the computer system of claim 16 (Lindsay [0217-0224]), wherein the number of keys in the number of key value pairs are used and the number of the values in the number of key value pairs are not stored with user details for the user profile (Lindsay Figure 11 and [0199] “Secure data vault 1140 can be configured for centrally storing various types of tokens generated by tokenization system 1100. The tokens may be stored in secure data vault 1140 with corresponding values of interest and/or with references to such values of interest stored elsewhere” the token and reference pairs are separate from the user details (Social Security number, credit card number, a mailing address, a phone number, a date of birth, or other types of information) that are stored elsewhere).
Claim 8 recites substantially the same content and is therefore rejected under the same rationales.
Regarding Claims 9 and 18:
Claim 18. Lindsay further discloses the computer system of claim 10, wherein the number of processor units executes the program instructions to (Lindsay [0217-0224]): purge a number of the key value pairs from the secure database using a policy (Lindsay [0207] Time-to-live policy auto-deletes data and tokens after a policy of elapsed time).
Claim 9 recites substantially the same content and is therefore rejected under the same rationales.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record in the submitted PTO-892 Notice of References Cited and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIGUEL A LOPEZ whose telephone number is (703)756-1241. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00AM-5:00PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jorge Ortiz-Criado can be reached on 5712727624. 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.
/M.A.L./ Examiner, Art Unit 2496
/JORGE L ORTIZ CRIADO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2496