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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks 25 August 2026 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the updated grounds of rejection.
Whatever description of a highly structured, compartmentalized multi-tenant architecture may exist in the disclosure, it is not present in the claims. MPEP § 2106.05(a) (“After the examiner has consulted the specification and determined that the disclosed invention improves technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement in technology.”). Claiming the desired outcome of memory being exclusive to a source absent technical details of how exclusivity is enforced and the desired outcome of maintaining proprietary data absent details in the claims of how proprietary data is maintained is not an improvement to technology, but the idea of improving technology. Id. (“An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome.”); see Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“Other software-based claimed inventions, however, have failed to pass section 101 muster, because they did not recite any assertedly inventive technology for improving computers as tools and/or because the elements of the asserted invention were so result-based that they amounted to patenting the patent-ineligible concept itself.”); IMcRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“A patent may issue ‘for the means or method of producing a certain result, or effect, and not for the result or effect produced.’”); Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., 134 F.4th 1205, 1213 (Fed. Cir. 2025); Constellation Designs, LLC v. LG Elecs. Inc., 174 F.4th 888, 904 (Fed. Cir. 2026).
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.
Claims 1-5 and 7-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
As per claims 1, 8, and 15:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “receive data and data permissions from each of a plurality of data sources, the data permissions from each data source defining limitations on an ability for others to access data provided by the data source, wherein the data permissions comprise restrictions on access to the data based on an intended end usage of the data,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a data-gathering operation that can be done via interpersonal communication by someone merely handing the data and data permissions written on a piece of paper to another. Cf. Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2018). This limitation therefore falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II). As well, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation encompasses performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “receiving” encompasses a judgment, at a high level of generality, as to what the data and data permissions are. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “convert the data from each of the plurality of data sources into a format compatible with a data warehouse of the data management system,” as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “converting” encompasses a judgment, at a high level of generality, as to a format of the data compatible with the data warehouse. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “rearrange the data from each of the plurality of data sources to correspond to data fields within the data warehouse,” as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “rearranging” encompasses a judgment, at a high level of generality, as to a correspondence between the data and the fields. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “maintain proprietary data of each respective data source,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the concept of maintaining proprietary data as a results-based outcome, lacking any requirement for how the result of keeping locations exclusive to particular sources is achieved, similar to the Patent Office maintaining proprietary data pursuant to a request to not publish a patent application. This limitation therefore falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II).
The limitation, “receive a data request from a requester device, the data request comprising criteria for identifying data to be returned and a request purpose type indicator that provides an indication of an intended end use associated with the data request,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a data-gathering operation that can be done via interpersonal communication by someone merely handing the criteria and request purpose type indicator written on a piece of paper to another. Cf. Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2018). This limitation therefore falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II). As well, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation encompasses performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “receiving” encompasses a judgment, at a high level of generality, as to what the criteria and request purpose type indicator are. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “compare the criteria of the data request to the data within the data warehouse to identify unfiltered data that matches the criteria,” as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “comparing” encompasses a judgment, at a high level of generality, whether data matches the criteria. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “apply data permissions of each data source of the two or more data sources to the unfiltered data from each data source of the two or more data sources to produce filtered data,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, in the context of this limitation, “applying” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to which data is permitted. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “comparing the restrictions on access to the first data based on the intended end usage set by the first data source to the request purpose type indicator included in the data request and comparing the restrictions on access to the second databased on the intended end usage set by the second data source to the request purpose type indicator included in the data request to identify a restricted subset of the unfiltered data, wherein the restricted subset of the unfiltered data comprises data for which the restrictions on access to the data of each of the one or more data sources prohibit access for the intended end use associated with the data request,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, in the context of this limitation, “comparing” and “identifying” encompasses a person forming a judgment, e.g., that the restrictions apply to the subset. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “removing the restricted subset of unfilted data such that the restricted data is removed from the filtered data,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, in the context of this limitation, “removing” encompasses a person tracking, with pen and paper, which data to return. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “provide at least a portion of the filtered data to the requester via at least one of an email, a direct download, a clickable download link, file transfer protocol, or a hardcopy,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a data-gathering operation that can be done via interpersonal communication by someone merely handing the portion of the filtered data written on a piece of paper to another. Cf. Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2018). This limitation therefore falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a).
For the purposes of evaluating whether the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea or is significantly more than an abstract idea, these recited abstract ideas can be considered together as a single abstract idea, namely applying data permissions to unfiltered data from two or more data sources to produce filtered data. MPEP § 2106.04(II)(B).
The abstract idea of applying data permissions to unfiltered data from one or more data sources to produce filtered data is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “store the data from each of the plurality of data sources in a separate memory location within the data warehouse that is exclusive to the respective data source to,” is mere instruction to apply the exception of maintain proprietary data of the first data source and the second data source because the outcome of exclusivity to a data source is recited without specifying technical details of how the exclusivity is accomplished. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The additional element, “retrieve unfiltered data from the data warehouse, the unfiltered data matching the criteria of the data request, wherein the unfiltered data originated from two or more data sources of the plurality of data sources, the unfiltered data comprises first data associated with a first data source of the two or more data sources and second data associated with a second data source of the two or more data sources,” is at most mere insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
The additional element, “retrieve instructions that define data processing techniques corresponding to the one or more types of data, the instructions comprising at least one of compiled machine code, executable code, programming instructions, or scripts,” is mere instruction to apply the recited abstract idea because the outcome of retrieving instructions that define data processing techniques is recited without detail of how the instructions define data processing techniques, how they correspond to types, how the instructions are received, and how the instructions were produced, and as such are insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering of instructions for compilation. MPEP §§ 2106.05(f), 2106.05(g).
The additional element, “automatically compile the instructions to generate one or more executables,” is mere instruction to apply the recited abstract idea because the outcome of compiling instructions to generate an executable is recited without detail of how the instructions are compiled, and as such is insignificant extra-solution activity as insignificant computer application. MPEP §§ 2106.05(f), 2106.05(g).
The additional element, that the restrictions are compared and the subset removed by “run[ing] the executable” is mere instruction to apply the ideas of comparing and removing because the claims recite the outcomes of comparing and removing without technical detail of how the executable performs the comparing and removing, and is therefore insignificant extra-solution activity as insignificant computer implementation. MPEP §§ 2106.05(f), 2106.05(g).
As an ordered combination, the invention is mere automation of the manual process of applying data permissions to unfiltered data from one or more data sources to produce filtered data. MPEP §§ 2106.05(a), 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II). In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
The additional element, “receive a data request from a requester device, the data request comprising criteria for identifying data to be returned and a request purpose type indicator that provides an indication of an intended end use associated with the data request,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is receiving and transmitting data in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The additional element, “retrieve unfiltered data from a data warehouse, the unfiltered data matching the criteria of the data request, wherein the unfiltered data originated from one or more data sources of the plurality of data sources, the unfiltered data comprises first data associated with a first data source of the one or more data sources and second data associated with a second data source of the one or more of data sources,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is receiving and transmitting data in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The additional element, “retrieve instructions that define data processing techniques corresponding to the one or more types of data, the instructions comprising at least one of compiled machine code, executable code, programming instructions, or scripts,” as mere instruction to apply the exception, is well-understood, routine, and conventional because the limitation is directed to a generic function, MPEP § 2106.05(f)(1) (“Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished “), and despite the lack of specific disclosed acts, steps, procedure or algorithm to accomplish the recited function, Specification ¶ [0062]-[0063] (“modules pertaining to data types, “X,Y,Z,” . . . “modules pertaining to data types “C,D,Q,Y” . . . “An application module corresponding to the new data “AA” may be generated by the DMS 108, an administrator device, or another device”), MPEP §§ 2161.01, 2164.08, based on absence of evidence in the record to the contrary, MPEP § 2164.01(a), that Applicant’s reliance upon the skilled artisan’s knowledge to provide the necessary information to reduce the purely functional disclosure to practice is sufficient for enablement, MPEP §§ 2164.01, 2164.05(b), and therefore this limitation is disclosed “in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a).” MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A).
The additional element, “automatically compile the instructions to generate one or more executables,” as mere instruction to apply the exception, is well-understood, routine, and conventional because the limitation is directed to a generic function, MPEP § 2106.05(f)(1) (“Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished “), and despite the lack of specific disclosed acts, steps, procedure or algorithm to accomplish the recited function, Specification ¶ [0063] (“compiler 608”), MPEP §§ 2161.01, 2164.08, based on absence of evidence in the record to the contrary, MPEP § 2164.01(a), that Applicant’s reliance upon the skilled artisan’s knowledge to provide the necessary information to reduce the purely functional disclosure to practice is sufficient for enablement, MPEP §§ 2164.01, 2164.05(b), and therefore this limitation is disclosed “in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a).” MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A).
The additional element, that the restrictions are compared and the subset removed by “run[ing] the executable” as mere instruction to apply the exception, is well-understood, routine, and conventional because the limitation is directed to a generic function, MPEP § 2106.05(f)(1) (“Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished “), and despite the lack of specific disclosed acts, steps, procedure or algorithm to accomplish the recited function, Specification ¶ [0047] (“When the retrieved data includes data from more than one data source, data attributable to the first data source 102A may be filtered by the executable configured with a first plurality of data sharing permissions. Further, second data attributable to the second data source 102B may be filtered by the executable configured with a second plurality of data sharing permissions, and so on.”), MPEP §§ 2161.01, 2164.08, based on absence of evidence in the record to the contrary, MPEP § 2164.01(a), that Applicant’s reliance upon the skilled artisan’s knowledge to provide the necessary information to reduce the purely functional disclosure to practice is sufficient for enablement, MPEP §§ 2164.01, 2164.05(b), and therefore this limitation is disclosed “in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a).” MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A).
As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of applying data permissions to unfiltered data from one or more data sources to produce filtered data because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 2:
The recited judicial exception(s) is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “providing at least the portion of the one or both of the unfiltered data and the filtered data comprises at least one delivery technique selected from a group comprising emailing the at least the portion of the filtered data, providing a direct download, providing a clickable download link, a file transfer protocol, and sending a hardcopy of the at least the portion of the filtered data,” is at most mere insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole.
The claim(s) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception either individually or as a combination when viewing the claim(s) as a whole.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more.
In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity or field of use, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
The additional element, “providing at least the portion of the one or both of the unfiltered data and the filtered data comprises at least one delivery technique selected from a group comprising emailing the at least the portion of the filtered data, providing a direct download, providing a clickable download link, a file transfer protocol, and sending a hardcopy of the at least the portion of the filtered data,” is a limitation recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions as receiving or transmitting data over a network. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i).
The claim(s) is not patent eligible.
As per claim 3:
The recited judicial exception(s) is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “the data warehouse comprises a remote database,” is at most mere insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole.
The claim(s) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception either individually or as a combination when viewing the claim(s) as a whole.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more.
In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity or field of use, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
The additional element, “the data warehouse comprises a remote database,” is a limitation recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions as receiving or transmitting data over a network. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i).
The claim(s) is not patent eligible.
As per claim 4:
The recited judicial exception(s) is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “the data permissions are stored in the data warehouse,” is at most mere insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole.
The claim(s) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception either individually or as a combination when viewing the claim(s) as a whole.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more.
In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity or field of use, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
The additional element, “the data permissions are stored in the data warehouse,” is a limitation recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions as storing and retrieving information in memory. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(iv).
The claim(s) is not patent eligible.
As per claim 5:
The recited judicial exception(s) is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “the data request is associated with a unique number that identifies a data requester, an industry in which the data requester associated with the requester device operates, a data set to be accessed, the one or more data sources, or combinations thereof,” is at most mere insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole.
The claim(s) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception either individually or as a combination when viewing the claim(s) as a whole.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more.
In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity or field of use, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
The additional element, “the data request is associated with a unique number that identifies a data requester, an industry in which the data requester associated with the requester device operates, a data set to be accessed, the one or more data sources, or combinations thereof,” is at most mere insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering,” is a limitation recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions as receiving or transmitting data over a network. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i).
The claim(s) is not patent eligible.
As per claim 7:
The recited judicial exception(s) is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “each data permission is set by an associated data source of the one or more data sources,” is at most mere insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole.
The claim(s) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception either individually or as a combination when viewing the claim(s) as a whole.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more.
In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity or field of use, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
The additional element, “each data permission is set by an associated data source of the one or more data sources,” is a limitation recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions as receiving or transmitting data over a network. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i).
The claim(s) is not patent eligible.
As per claim 9:
The claim(s) recites a judicial exception.
The limitation, “each data permission limits access to the unfiltered data based on one or more criteria selected from a group comprising a portfolio type, a consumer type, an intended use of data, and an individual data element,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, in the context of this limitation, “limiting” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to which data is permitted.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, nor does the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim(s) is not patent eligible.
As per claim 10:
The limitation, “determining access fees for the unfiltered data and the filtered data,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, in the context of this limitation, “determining” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to the fee to charge for access to the respective data.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The recited judicial exception(s) is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “providing the access fees to the requester device,” is at most mere insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole.
The claim(s) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception either individually or as a combination when viewing the claim(s) as a whole.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more.
In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity or field of use, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
The additional element, “providing the access fees to the requester device,” is a limitation recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions as receiving or transmitting data over a network. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i).
The claim(s) is not patent eligible.
As per claim 11:
The limitation, “providing at least a portion of the access fees associated with the at least the portion of one or both of the unfiltered data and the filtered data to each of the one or more data sources,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers payment, a commercial interaction.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a commercial interaction, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The recited judicial exception(s) is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “receiving a selection of the at least the portion of one or both of the unfiltered data and the filtered data from the requester device,” is at most mere insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering.
As an ordered combination, the invention is directed to merely implementing the judicial exception of applying data permissions by a computer.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole.
The claim(s) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception either individually or as a combination when viewing the claim(s) as a whole.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more.
In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity or field of use, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
The additional element, “receiving a selection of the at least the portion of one or both of the unfiltered data and the filtered data from the requester device,” is a limitation recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions as receiving or transmitting data over a network. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i).
The claim(s) is not patent eligible.
As per claim 12:
The limitation, “the access fees vary based on one or both of an identity of a data requester associated with the requester device and a type of requested data,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers payment, a commercial interaction.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a commercial interaction, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, nor does the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim(s) is not patent eligible.
As per claim 13:
The limitation, “at least one of the data permissions limits access to one or more data types selected from a group comprising one or more data records, one or more data fields, one or more types of personally identifiable information, and portions of one or more data records,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers filtering, a type of managing personal behavior.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The recited judicial exception(s) is not integrated into a practical application.
As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, nor does the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim(s) is not patent eligible.
As per claim 14:
The recited judicial exception(s) is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “the data permissions are stored on an exclusion matrix that defines one or both of filters and exclusions for the unfiltered data,” is at most mere insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering.
As an ordered combination, the invention is directed to merely implementing the judicial exception of applying data permissions by a computer.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole.
The claim(s) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception either individually or as a combination when viewing the claim(s) as a whole.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more.
In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity or field of use, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
The additional element, “the data permissions are stored on an exclusion matrix that defines one or both of filters and exclusions for the unfiltered data,” is a limitation recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions as storing and retrieving information in memory. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(iv).
The claim(s) is not patent eligible.
As per claim 16:
The recited judicial exception(s) is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “provide a graphical user interface to each of the one or more data sources, the graphical user interface including one or more user-selectable elements accessible by a user to configure the data permissions,” is at most mere insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering.
The additional element, “receive user inputs corresponding to user selections of at least one of the one or more user-selectable elements defining the data permissions,” is at most mere insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering.
The additional element, “storing the user inputs as the data permissions in the data warehouse,” is at most mere insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole.
The claim(s) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception either individually or as a combination when viewing the claim(s) as a whole.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more.
In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity or field of use, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
The additional element, “provide a graphical user interface to each of the one or more data sources, the graphical user interface including one or more user-selectable elements accessible by a user to configure the data permissions,” is a limitation recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions as using an interface for data gathering activities. See OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363-64 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The additional element, “receive user inputs corresponding to user selections of at least one of the one or more user-selectable elements defining the data permissions,” is a limitation recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions as receiving or transmitting data over a network. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i).
The additional element, “storing the user inputs as the data permissions in the data warehouse,” is a limitation recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions as storing and retrieving information in memory. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(iv).
The claim(s) is not patent eligible.
As per claim 17:
The limitation, “applying the data permissions comprises anonymizing at least a portion of the unfiltered data by automatically removing one or both of personally identifying information and non-personally identifying information from the at least the portion of the unfiltered data,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers filtering, a type of managing personal behavior.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, nor does the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim(s) is not patent eligible.
As per claim 18:
The limitation, “applying the data permissions comprises filtering out at least one data type selected from a group comprising information about specific entities, information about specific individuals, specific characteristics of consumers, specific categories of information, and selected data fields,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers filtering, a type of managing personal behavior.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, nor does the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim(s) is not patent eligible.
As per claim 19:
The claim(s) recites a judicial exception.
The limitation, “producing a report that includes sharable information corresponding to the data request,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, in the context of this limitation, “producing” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to which information belongs on the report.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The recited judicial exception(s) is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “sending the report to a data requester associated with the requester device,” is at most mere insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole.
The claim(s) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception either individually or as a combination when viewing the claim(s) as a whole.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more.
In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity or field of use, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
The additional element, “sending the report to a data requester associated with the requester device,” is a limitation recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions as receiving or transmitting data over a network. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i).
The claim(s) is not patent eligible.
As per claim 20:
The claim(s) recites a judicial exception.
The limitation, “a means specified in the data request,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, in the context of this limitation, “specifying” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to which means they want to use.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The recited judicial exception(s) is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “the report is sent to the data requester using a means specified in the data request,” is at most mere insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole.
The claim(s) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception either individually or as a combination when viewing the claim(s) as a whole.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more.
In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity or field of use, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
The additional element, “the report is sent to the data requester using a means specified in the data request,” is a limitation recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions as receiving or transmitting data over a network. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i).
The claim(s) is not patent eligible.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,769,296. Although the claims at issue are not identical, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have immediately envisaged the instant invention.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,620,404. Although the claims at issue are not identical, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have immediately envisaged the instant invention.
Prior Art
The instant invention differs from the purpose-based access control of Byun, Purpose Based Access Control for Privacy Protection in Relational Database Systems. In particular, the SQL-based implementation introducing a “FOR” keyword differs, in a not clearly modifiable way, from the claimed type modules, the retrieved instructions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM SPIELER whose telephone number is (571)270-3883. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 11-3.
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, Ann Lo can be reached on 571-272-9767. 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.
WILLIAM SPIELER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2159
/WILLIAM SPIELER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159
