Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/4/2025 has been entered.
Claim notes/ Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: it depends on an already cancelled claim – i.e. Claim 11. Appropriate correction is required.
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 12-13, 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 21 is directed towards a method, thus meeting the Step 1 eligibility criterion. Claim 21 does recite the abstract concept of a commercial interaction, including advertising activities/behaviors, business relations, sales activities, which represents a method of organizing human activity and has been identified as an abstract idea – see MPEP § 2106. The relevant claimed limitations include: creating by the user a CPC dataset and storing therein a user’s privacy and marketing preferences created by the user / communicating the contents of the stored CPC dataset privacy and marketing preferences for storage as a dataset of privacy and marketing preferences associated with the user when the user is interfaced with the associated remote entity server / interfacing with select ones of the remote entity servers by the user wherein changes can be made to the user’s privacy and marketing preferences stored at the select and accessed one of the remote entity servers / receiving the dataset associated with the user / comparing the received datasets with a rule engine that compares the CPC dataset with the received datasets and determines the differences therebetween / reconciling any differences between the stored CPC dataset and the received datasets to create an updated CPC dataset / communicating the updated CPC dataset for storage thereat as an updated dataset. Applicant’s Spec. provides further context to the claimed invention as pertaining to the commercial interaction realm: “the disclosure is directed to systems and methods of communicating privacy and marketing preferences in accordance with some embodiments of the invention”, “providing…a communication channel between the user and the entity to customize the privacy and marketing preferences dataset of the user for the data about the user stored by the entity”, “exists a need to enable online consumers to manage their privacy and marketing preferences across multiple platforms and entity preference centers”, “Fig.1 shows a system for communicating personal privacy and marketing preferences according to one embodiment”, “Fig.2 shows…for user management of personal privacy and marketing data “, “Fig.3 is a block diagram…for communicating personal privacy and marketing preferences”, “a user interface is provided to serve as a “personal privacy and marketing control panel””. Claim 21 also recites the abstract concept of a mental concept – i.e. mental process that can be performed in the human mind or using pen/paper, including an observation/evaluation/judgment, which has been identified as an abstract idea by the MPEP: creating a CPC dataset and storing therein a user’s privacy and marketing preferences created by the user / comparing the received datasets that compares the stored CPC dataset with the received datasets and determines the differences therebetween / reconciling any differences between the stored CPC dataset and the received datasets to create an updated CPC dataset. These claimed limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computing elements, thus still being in the mental process category.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 21 includes the additional elements of remote entity servers / center preference server / storing data on server (s) / rule engine. The remote servers/ center preference server/rule engine represent generic computing elements. Storing data represents insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional elements do not , alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor do they apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 21 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because as noted above, the claimed computing element represent generic computing elements; they are recited at a high level of generality. Storing data within a digital computing environment represents insignificant extra-solution activity – i.e. it represents a well known and commonly used means of storing data , as known to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor do they apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Therefore, Claim 21 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is not patent eligible.
Remaining dependent claims 12-13, 17-20 further recite and narrow the abstract ideas of the independent claims themselves. The claims further recite the additional elements of providing data in a machine readable format, a database, and managing cookie data/cookie storage. Providing data in a machine readable format does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. The database represents a generic computing element; it is recited at a high level of generality. Managing cookies/cookie storage represents insignificant extra-solution activity – i.e. it represents a well known and commonly used means of storing/managing data in a digital computing environment, as known to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination with the additional elements above, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor do they apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are not patent eligible.
The prior art of record does not teach neither singly nor in combination the limitations of claims 12-13, 17-21. Yeap (20090254511) teaches a user’s privacy preferences, and updating the preferences; it teaches providing a mechanism for a privacy management policy hub for maintaining privacy information in an effective and efficient manner. However, it lacks the combination of claimed limitations of pending independent claim 21. Ciurea (20130332362) teaches a data warehouse storing first data representing a personal privacy policy of a user; a portal configured to communicate with a remote system storing second data representing a site privacy policy of an entity with whom the user interacts; and a rule engine coupled with the data warehouse and the portal to identify a policy customization to bridge a gap between the personal privacy policy of the user and the site privacy policy of the entity. However, it lacks the combination of claimed limitations of pending independent claim 21.
When taken as a whole, the claims are not rendered obvious as the available prior art does not
suggest or otherwise render obvious the noted features nor does the available prior art suggest or otherwise render obvious further modification of the evidence at hand. Such modifications would require substantial reconstruction relying solely on improper hindsight bias, and thus would not be obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered; Applicant argues with substance:
The claimed steps require the steps of “comparing” with a rule engine a plurality of remote datasets to determine and then “reconciling”. This is followed by an update of all of the datasets at the remote servers, even for those not having been modified. Applicant believes this overcomes any judicial exception as based upon the reasoning in Example 39.
The pending claims do recite an abstract idea, and the additional elements do not, alone or in combination, integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or represent significantly more than the abstract idea itself, as noted above. There is no technical support/technical evidence in the Spec. that the claimed invention, when implemented, improves the functioning of the computing device itself, or other technology/technical field. See Office Action above for the detailed, reasoned 35 USC 101 analysis. The pending claimed invention and Example 39 have different fact patterns and claim sets, and thus the two are not analogous. Furthermore, in Example 39, the claim was deemed patent eligible since it does not recite any of the judicial exceptions enumerated in the 2019 PEG/MPEP; the claim is directed towards a method of training a neural network for facial detection. Contrary to Example 39, the pending claims do recite an abstract idea, and the additional elements do not, alone or in combination, integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or represent significantly more than the abstract idea itself, as noted above.
Cited prior art does not teach the claimed limitations of the pending claims
The prior art of record does not teach neither singly nor in combination the limitations of claims 12-13, 17-21. Yeap (20090254511) teaches a user’s privacy preferences, and updating the preferences; it teaches providing a mechanism for a privacy management policy hub for maintaining privacy information in an effective and efficient manner. However, it lacks the combination of claimed limitations of pending independent claim 21. Ciurea (20130332362) teaches a data warehouse storing first data representing a personal privacy policy of a user; a portal configured to communicate with a remote system storing second data representing a site privacy policy of an entity with whom the user interacts; and a rule engine coupled with the data warehouse and the portal to identify a policy customization to bridge a gap between the personal privacy policy of the user and the site privacy policy of the entity. However, it lacks the combination of claimed limitations of pending independent claim 21.
When taken as a whole, the claims are not rendered obvious as the available prior art does not
suggest or otherwise render obvious the noted features nor does the available prior art suggest or otherwise render obvious further modification of the evidence at hand. Such modifications would require substantial reconstruction relying solely on improper hindsight bias, and thus would not be obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexandru Cirnu whose telephone number is (571) 272-7775. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM. 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, Ilana Spar can be reached on (571) 270-7537. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Alexandru Cirnu/
Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3622
10/9/2025