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 30 September 2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that the claims integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Identifying a restricted subset and removing the restricted subset were identified as mental processes. As Applicant states, “[t]his enables data owners to prohibit access to their data for certain end uses.” Therefore, enabling data owners to prohibit access to their data for certain end uses is not an improvement to technology as it arises solely from the abstract idea recited in the claims. MPEP § 2106.05(a).
Applicant argues that “[t]he storage of data from different data sources in different memories that are exclusive to a given data source provides a data structure that helps ensure that data from each source is protected and only accessed/provided when the applicable data sharing permissions permit such access.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. There is no indication that the memory is protected from access.
Applicant argues that exclusion matrices improve technology. Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is a simple table. Fig. 3. It can be written on paper. This is not technology. There is no mention of contiguous memory in the claims, much less in the disclosure.
Applicant argues that the speed and efficiency of the computerized solution improves technology. Examiner respectfully disagrees. See Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox. Corp., 134 F.4th 1205, 1214 (Fed. Cir. 2025).
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, “apply data permissions to the unfiltered data from each data source of the one 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, “identifying 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, “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).
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 one or more data sources to produce filtered data. MPEP § 2106.04(II)(B). This falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
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, “receive 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,” is at most mere insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
The additional element, “wherein the data permissions from each of the plurality of data sources are stored as exclusion matrices,” is at most mere insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
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 at most mere insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
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 at most mere insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
The additional element, “the first data is stored in a first memory that is exclusive to the first data source and the second data is stored in a second memory that is exclusive to the second data source to maintain proprietary data of the first data source and the second data source,” is at most mere insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
The additional element, “provide at least a portion of one or both of the filtered data to the requester device,” is at most mere insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 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 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,” 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, “wherein the data permissions from each of the plurality of data sources are stored as exclusion matrices,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is storing and retrieving information in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of storing and retrieving information in memory. 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, “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, “the first data is stored in a first memory that is exclusive to the first data source and the second data is stored in a second memory that is exclusive to the second data source to maintain proprietary data of the first data source and the second data source,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is storing information in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of storing information in memory. 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, “provide at least a portion of one or both of the filtered data to the requester device,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is presenting information in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of presenting offers. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363-64 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
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, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are broader than but encompass the subject matter of the ’296 patent.
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, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are broader than but encompass the subject matter of the ’404 patent.
Allowable Subject Matter
Applying data permissions defined by a data source for data from the data source restricting access based on an intended end usage is novel and abstract.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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