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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular paragraphs and/or columns and lines in the references as applied to Applicant’s claims for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The prompt development of a clear issue requires that the replies of the Applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims. Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP § 2163.06.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Authorization for Internet Communications in a Patent Application
Applicant is encouraged to file an Authorization for Internet Communications in a Patent Application form (http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) along with the response to this office action to facilitate and expedite future communication between Applicant and the examiner. If the form is submitted then Applicant is requested to provide a contact email address in the signature block at the conclusion of the official reply.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: The claim is a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter:
Claim 1. A computer system comprising.
Step 2A Prong One: The claim recites an abstract idea because it includes limitations that can be considered mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind or via pen and paper, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea:
identify, based on the data processing particulars, a provider system associated with the data processing particulars (abstract idea mental process).
Step 2A Prong Two: The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the abstract idea is recited but for generically recited additional computer elements (i.e. data storage, processor, memory, computer readable medium, etc.) which do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea amounting to simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer using generic computing hardware and/or software (e.g. generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The generic computing components are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the recited generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea:
at least one processor (generic computing components);
a communications module coupled to the at least one processor (generic computing components); and
a memory coupled to the at least one processor and storing processor-executable instructions which (generic computing components), when executed by the at least one processor, configure the at least one processor to:
provide a bidirectional application programming interface that interfaces between at least one provider system and at least one subscriber system, the bidirectional application programming interface configured to allow the at least one provider system to make requests of the at least one subscriber system and to allow the at least one subscriber system to make requests of the at least one provider system (generic computing components performing extra-solution activity of sending/receiving data/information);
receive, from a subscriber system and prior to the subscriber system submitting a data processing request, an application programming interface request that includes a request to confirm data processing particulars (generic computing components performing extra-solution activity of sending/receiving data/information);
send, to the provider system, the request to confirm the data processing particulars (generic computing components performing extra-solution activity of sending/receiving data/information);
receive, from the provider system, an indication that the data processing particulars are no longer valid and updated data processing particulars that are valid (generic computing components performing extra-solution activity of sending/receiving data/information); and
send, to the subscriber system, a response to the application programming interface request that includes the indication that the data processing particulars are no longer valid and the updated data processing particulars that are valid (generic computing components performing extra-solution activity of sending/receiving data/information).
Step 2B: The claim includes limitations which can be considered extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) insufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional limitations only perform at least one of collecting, gathering, displaying, generating, modifying, updating, storing, retrieving, sending, and receiving data/information data which are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)II. The claim further includes limitations that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they merely recite the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claim, and its limitations when considered separately and in combination, is directed to patent ineligible subject matter:
at least one processor;
a communications module coupled to the at least one processor; and
a memory coupled to the at least one processor and storing processor-executable instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, configure the at least one processor to:
provide a bidirectional application programming interface that interfaces between at least one provider system and at least one subscriber system, the bidirectional application programming interface configured to allow the at least one provider system to make requests of the at least one subscriber system and to allow the at least one subscriber system to make requests of the at least one provider system (extra-solution activity of sending/receiving data/information);
receive, from a subscriber system and prior to the subscriber system submitting a data processing request, an application programming interface request that includes a request to confirm data processing particulars (extra-solution activity of sending/receiving data/information);
send, to the provider system, the request to confirm the data processing particulars (extra-solution activity of sending/receiving data/information);
receive, from the provider system, an indication that the data processing particulars are no longer valid and updated data processing particulars that are valid (extra-solution activity of sending/receiving data/information); and
send, to the subscriber system, a response to the application programming interface request that includes the indication that the data processing particulars are no longer valid and the updated data processing particulars that are valid (extra-solution activity of sending/receiving data/information).
Claim 2. The computer system of claim 1, wherein the processor-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, configure the at least one processor to: receive, from the subscriber system, an application programming interface push request that includes data associated with the data processing particulars (extra-solution activity of receiving data/information).
Claim 3. The computer system of claim 2, wherein the application programming interface push request is received from the subscriber system at predefined intervals (extra-solution activity of receiving data/information).
Claim 4. The computer system of claim 2, wherein the processor-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, configure the at least one processor to: responsive to receiving the application programming interface push request, send, to the provider system, the data associated with the data processing particulars (extra-solution activity of sending/receiving data/information).
Claim 5. The computer system of claim 1, wherein the processor-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, configure the at least one processor to: receive, from the provider system, an application programming interface push request that includes updated data processing particulars that are valid (extra-solution activity of receiving data/information).
Claim 6. The computer system of claim 5, wherein the processor-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, configure the at least one processor to: responsive to receiving the application programming interface push request that includes updated data processing particulars that are valid, send, to the subscriber system, the updated data processing particulars that are valid (extra-solution activity of sending/receiving data/information).
Claim 7. The computer system of claim 1, wherein the data processing particulars include at least an identifier of the provider system (extra-solution activity of sending/receiving data/information).
Claim 8. The computer system of claim 1, wherein the subscriber system submits the data processing request using the updated data processing particulars received in response to the application programming interface request (extra-solution activity of sending/receiving data/information).
Claim 9. The computer system of claim 8, wherein the request to confirm the data processing particulars is sent by the subscriber system to reduce an error rate of the data processing by the subscriber system (extra-solution activity of sending/transmitting data/information).
Claim 10. The computer system of claim 1, wherein prior to sending the indication that the data processing particulars are no longer valid and the updated data processing particulars that are valid, the provider system obtains consent to send the updated data processing particulars that are valid to the subscriber system (extra-solution activity of receiving data/information).
Claim 11. The computer system of claim 1, wherein the processor-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, configure the at least one processor to: generate a list of all subscriber systems for a particular data record maintained by the provider system (extra-solution activity of generating data/information); and send, to the provider system, the list of all subscriber systems for the particular data record (extra-solution activity of sending/transmitting data/information).
As per claim 12, it has similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 13, it has similar limitations as claim 2 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 14, it has similar limitations as claim 3 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 15, it has similar limitations as claim 4 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 16, it has similar limitations as claim 5 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 17, it has similar limitations as claim 6 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 18, it has similar limitations as claim 8 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 19, it has similar limitations as claim 9 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 20, it has similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 8, 12, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Sutton et al. (US 9,531,719) (hereinafter Sutton as previously cited) in view of
Luke et al. (US 10,965,391) (hereinafter Luke as previously cited) in view of
Wadhwa et al. (US 2024/0176855) (hereinafter Wadhwa as previously cited) in view of
Mahoney et al. (US 2023/0396438).
As per claim 1, Sutton primarily teaches the invention as claimed including a computer system comprising:
at least one processor (col. 31, ll. 20-33 one or more processors);
a communications module coupled to the at least one processor (col. 29, ll. 58-67 wireless or wired network card); and
a memory (col. 30, ll. 13-28 memory) coupled to the at least one processor and storing processor-executable instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, configure the at least one processor to:
provide an application programming interface that interfaces between at least one provider system and at least one subscriber system (col. 25, ll. 13-16 customers of the computing resource service provider may operate and manage a database from the database service by utilizing appropriately configured API calls and col. 25, ll. 63 to col. 26, ll. 7 a customer may utilize an interface, provided by the computing resource service provider, to create or subscribe to one or more subjects to which one or more messages may be published through. For instance, a customer may use the interface to create a new subject and subscribe to this subject by specifying that any messages published to the subject may be transmitted to a particular location);
send, to the provider system, the request to confirm the data processing particulars (col. 2, ll. 49-53 when a user provides his/her user credentials, through an on-premises client, to request access to the computing resource service provider network, the on-premises client may send this request to an identity provider, which may verify the user's credentials and col. 8, ll. 29-39 client may transmit the request to access the computing resource service provider to an identity provider within the customer network to obtain a security document that may be used to authenticate the user within the computing resource service provider network. For instance, the security document may specify the identity of the particular user within the customer network submitting the request to access the computing resource service provider and an assertion of the user's authentication status within the customer network).
receive, from the provider system, an indication that the data processing particulars are no longer valid (col. 15, ll. 20-26 if the user has not provided a valid set of credentials, the identity provider may take one or more actions corresponding to the detection of invalid credentials. For instance, the identity provider may transmit one or more notifications to the user client that may cause the user client to display an error message indicating that the provided set of credentials do not match expected values and col. 17, ll. 38-50 if the security document received from the user is deemed to not be valid, the computing resource service provider may take one or more actions corresponding to detection of an invalid security document. The computing resource service provider may transmit one or more notifications to the customer and/or any other administrator of the customer network to inform them of a potential issue concerning this particular user) and updated data processing particulars that are valid (col. 3, ll. 21-24 if the policy is not valid, the computing resource service provider may determine whether there is a current policy stored therein and utilize this current policy to generate a new cookie for the user; col. 6, ll. 36-44 if the customer has updated the policy within the identity management service after creation of the cookie but before receipt of the user's request to access one or more customer resources within the computing resource service provider network, the policy encoded within the cookie will no longer be up to date. Accordingly, the identity management service may generate a new cookie that specifies this updated policy and provide this cookie to the user; and col. 9, ll. 22-26 if the received one or more policies are not valid, then the identity management service may utilize the existing policies such as through the mapping of user identities within the customer network to policies to generate a new cookie and provide this new cookie to the user client); and
send, to the subscriber system, a response to the application programming interface request that includes the indication that the data processing particulars are no longer valid and the updated data processing particulars that are valid (col. 11, ll. 24-35 if the one or more mappings specify that the one or more policies encoded within the cookie are no longer valid e.g., the policies encoded within the cookie do not match the policies included in the mappings, the identity management sub-system may generate a new cookie that encodes the policies as defined within the mappings and provide these to the user client. Alternatively, if the policies in the one or more mappings do match those encoded within the cookie for the user, the identity management sub-system may utilize the policies to generate one or more delegated access permissions based at least in part on the policies and col. 23, ll. 42-48 if the policy has been updated since the creation of the cookie, the identity management service may generate a new cookie that includes the one or more user roles included in the updated policy and provide said new cookie to the user for use in accessing the one or more services provided by the computing resource service provider).
Sutton does not explicitly teach:
provide a bidirectional application programming interface that interfaces between at least one provider system and at least one subscriber system, the bidirectional application programming interface configured to allow the at least one provider system to make requests of the at least one subscriber system and to allow the at least one subscriber system to make requests of the at least one provider system;
receive, from a subscriber system and prior to the subscriber system submitting a data processing request, an application programming interface request that includes a request to confirm data processing particulars;
identify, based on the data processing particulars, a provider system associated with the data processing particulars.
However, Luke teaches provide a bidirectional application programming interface that interfaces between at least one provider system and at least one subscriber system, the bidirectional application programming interface configured to allow the at least one provider system to make requests of the at least one subscriber system and to allow the at least one subscriber system to make requests of the at least one provider system (col. 12, ll. 30-55 bi-directional content streaming system may generate and stream output data to a client device over a network via a bi-directional API. Conversely, the client device may transmit user-generated input data to the bi-directional content streaming system via the bi-directional API).
Luke and Sutton are both concerned with data transfer in computing networks and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sutton in view of Luke because it would provide a streamlined listener response technique that allows users to provide vocal responses merely by saying their response and without having to perform additional actions like placing a phone call or loading an app. This allows users to provide responses with ease and convenience, which in turn provides the streaming service with increased user participation.
Sutton in view of Luke do not explicitly teach:
receive, from a subscriber system and prior to the subscriber system submitting a data processing request, an application programming interface request that includes a request to confirm data processing particulars;
identify, based on the data processing particulars, a provider system associated with the data processing particulars.
However, Wadhwa teaches identify, based on the data processing particulars, a provider system associated with the data processing particulars (abstract authenticate user credentials of a user using an identity broker, and the identity broker identifies an identity provider associated with the user credentials).
Wadhwa and Sutton are both concerned with access control in computing systems and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sutton in view of Luke in view of Wadhwa because it would provide for automatic and secure access to sensitive and confidential information when unusual or time-sensitive issues occur in the network. This would also provide monitoring capability, where the network interactions are monitored, and any unusual activity may be flagged quickly and efficiently, enabling a quick resolution for the issues. This rapid resolution of issues may reduce the cost of network operations, provide faster troubleshooting, help significant incident avoidance, and increase user satisfaction..
Sutton in view of Luke in view of Wadhwa do not explicitly teach receive, from a subscriber system and prior to the subscriber system submitting a data processing request, an application programming interface request that includes a request to confirm data processing particulars.
However, Mahoney teaches receive, from a subscriber system and prior to the subscriber system submitting a data processing request, an application programming interface request that includes a request to confirm data processing particulars ([0053] check whether the expiration time of the access token has been exceeded prior to sending the access token as part of an API call to the service provider).
Mahoney and Sutton are both concerned with access control in computing systems and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sutton in view of Luke in view of Wadhwa in view of Mahoney because it would provide a way for using dynamic encryption keys that only remain valid and usable during the time when an associated access token for a given user session is valid and/or has not expired which reduces the risk that the keys stored by the user application and/or the service provider may be compromised, eliminates the need to store the encryption keys for periods of time longer than a given user session, and eliminates any overhead that may be associated with implementing a key rotation scheme.
As per claim 8, Mahoney teaches wherein the subscriber system submits the data processing request using the updated data processing particulars received in response to the application programming interface request (abstract when the access token expires, or becomes otherwise invalid, the dynamic encryption keys are discarded, and any further API calls are made using an updated access token and updated dynamic encryption keys).
As per claim 12, it has similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 18, it has similar limitations as claim 8 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 20, it has similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 2, 4, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sutton in view of Luke in view of Wadhwa in view of Mahoney in view of Islam et al. (US 8,400,961) (hereinafter Islam as previously cited).
As per claim 2, Sutton in view of Luke in view of Wadhwa in view of Mahoney do not explicitly teach wherein the processor-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, configure the at least one processor to: receive, from the subscriber system, an application programming interface push request that includes data associated with the data processing particulars.
However, Islam teaches wherein the processor-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, configure the at least one processor to: receive, from the subscriber system, an application programming interface push request that includes data associated with the data processing particulars (col. 13, ll. 11-16 brokerage agent accesses data and extracts content information included in the content push request data. Based on the content information, the brokerage agent determines whether it has access rights to the content from the content service provider identified from the request data).
Islam and Sutton are both concerned with access control in computing systems and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sutton in view of Luke in view of Wadhwa in view of Mahoney in view of Islam because it would provide for a wireless multimedia brokerage service that supports sharing of real-time multimedia content whereby a mobile device user can perceive real-time content from a device in visual proximity, such as a nearby display device, and share the content of the display device with another mobile terminal user without the need to download or otherwise directly access the real-time content. The brokerage service can handle the transactional details of obtaining rights to the real-time content and also manage establishing and terminating a real-time multimedia session with the device(s) of the recipient user(s). The wireless multimedia content brokerage service can obtain subscriptions to real-time content or real-time content providers based on the location of one or more users so that, should one of such customers desire to forward real-time content to another user, any delay involved with obtaining rights to that real-time content can be minimal or nonexistent.
As per claim 4, Islam teaches wherein the processor-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, configure the at least one processor to: responsive to receiving the application programming interface push request, send, to the provider system, the data associated with the data processing particulars (fig. 5, blocks 408, 410, and 412 brokerage agent checks if it has access to content identified in push request and if yes the brokerage agent sends the push request to content provider for the desired content to be pushed and the brokerage agent receives the desired content from the content provider).
As per claim 13, it has similar limitations as claim 2 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 15, it has similar limitations as claim 4 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sutton in view of Luke in view of Wadhwa in view of Mahoney in view of Islam in view of Mohajer Va Pesaran et al. (US 2015/0095399) (hereinafter Mohajer as previously cited).
As per claim 3, Sutton in view of Luke in view of Wadhwa in view of Mahoney in view of Islam do not explicitly teach wherein the application programming interface push request is received from the subscriber system at predefined intervals.
However, Mohajer teaches wherein the application programming interface push request is received from the subscriber system at predefined intervals ([0122] receive messages from the platform that were pushed by subscribers and send push requests with information to the electronic platform periodically).
Mohajer and Sutton are both concerned with access control in computing systems and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sutton in view of Luke in view of Wadhwa in view of Mahoney in view of Islam in view of Mohajer because it would allow specific subscriber groups to have privileged access to a private location, radius and context based passive communication network via mobile device. The messages would be pushed onto the servers, and retrieved by pulling messages from the servers. The information retrieved based on proximity does not identify the subscriber who published the information. In this fashion, the information is anonymous to prevent any other subscriber from knowing the source of the information.
As per claim 14, it has similar limitations as claim 3 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 5, 7, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sutton in view of Luke in view of Wadhwa in view of Mahoney in view of Luo (US 2023/0344644) (as previously cited).
As per claim 5, Sutton in view of Luke in view of Wadhwa in view of Mahoney do not explicitly teach wherein the processor-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, configure the at least one processor to: receive, from the provider system, an application programming interface push request that includes updated data processing particulars that are valid.
However, Luo teaches wherein the processor-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, configure the at least one processor to: receive, from the provider system, an application programming interface push request that includes updated data processing particulars that are valid ([0005] message push request of a message provider is verified at a message pusher, and a to-be-pushed message is pushed after the verification succeeds).
Luo and Sutton are both concerned with access control in computing systems and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sutton in view of Luke in view of Wadhwa in view of Mahoney in view of Luo because it would provide a way to avoid message crosstalk and further improve message push security of the message provider.
As per claim 7, Sutton in view of Luke in view of Wadhwa in view of Mahoney do not explicitly teach wherein the data processing particulars include at least an identifier of the provider system.
However, Luo teaches wherein the data processing particulars include at least an identifier of the provider system ([0024] message push request carries the message provider identifier).
Luo and Sutton are both concerned with access control in computing systems and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sutton in view of Luke in view of Wadhwa in view of Mahoney in view of Luo because it would provide a way to avoid message crosstalk and further improve message push security of the message provider.
As per claim 16, it has similar limitations as claim 5 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sutton in view of Luke in view of Wadhwa in view of Mahoney in view of Luo in view of Oberheide et al. (US 2020/0186520) (hereinafter Oberheide as previously cited).
As per claim 6, Sutton in view of Luke in view of Wadhwa in view of Mahoney in view of Luo do not explicitly teach wherein the processor-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, configure the at least one processor to: responsive to receiving the application programming interface push request that includes updated data processing particulars that are valid, send, to the subscriber system, the updated data processing particulars that are valid.
However, Oberheide teaches wherein the processor-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, configure the at least one processor to: responsive to receiving the application programming interface push request that includes updated data processing particulars that are valid, send, to the subscriber system, the updated data processing particulars that are valid ([0050] provide a result of confirmation request / push notification such as a status indication of whether authentication of the requestor based on the request was successful).
Oberheide and Sutton are both concerned with access control in computing systems and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sutton in view of Luke in view of Wadhwa in view of Mahoney in view of Luo in view of Oberheide because it would provide for push-based challenges on mobile communication devices for the authentication and/or authorization of parties involved in a transaction utilizing non-intrusive techniques while providing improved security. The pushed messages preferably alert a user to the transaction request in real-time such that a decision of confirmation or denial of a transaction can be communicated to a requesting party with minimal time lag e.g., preferably less than a minute, and more preferably less than 10 seconds.
As per claim 17, it has similar limitations as claim 6 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sutton in view of Luke in view of Wadhwa in view of Mahoney in view of Schmidt (US 2004/0228329) (as previously cited).
As per claim 9, Sutton in view of Luke in view of Wadhwa in view of Mahoney do not explicitly teach wherein the request to confirm the data processing particulars is sent by the subscriber system to reduce an error rate of the data processing by the subscriber system
However, Schmidt teaches wherein the request to confirm the data processing particulars is sent by the subscriber system to reduce an error rate of the data processing by the subscriber system ([0002] additional measures must be taken in the transmission protocol in order to reduce the residual error rate of incorrectly transmitted data to correctly transmitted data below a value which is predetermined).
Schmidt and Sutton are both concerned with data transfer control in computing systems and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sutton in view of Luke in view of Wadhwa in view of Mahoney in view of Schmidt because it would provide for a safety-relevant verification of data transmission with respect to compliance with an error-based limit by checking a transmitted data record against the corresponding expected data record before the respective data packets are completely received by the intended reception subscribers. In consequence, this ensures that, if appropriate, on the one hand, any necessary safety-based reaction is initiated significantly closer to real time and, on the other hand, that any necessary repeated transmission of incorrectly transmitted data packets can be carried out at an earlier stage. Furthermore, this makes it possible to make considerably more efficient use of the capacity of the network.
As per claim 19, it has similar limitations as claim 9 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sutton in view of Luke in view of Wadhwa in view of Mahoney in view of Karia et al. (US 2022/0198138) (hereinafter Karia as previously cited).
As per claim 10, Sutton in view of Luke in view of Wadhwa in view of Mahoney do not explicitly teach wherein prior to sending the indication that the data processing particulars are no longer valid and the updated data processing particulars that are valid, the provider system obtains consent to send the updated data processing particulars that are valid to the subscriber system.
However, Karia teaches wherein prior to sending the indication that the data processing particulars are no longer valid and the updated data processing particulars that are valid, the provider system obtains consent to send the updated data processing particulars that are valid to the subscriber system ([0001] telecommunications service providers obtain some form of user consent prior to transmitting messages to enable users to allow or deny the communication).
Karia and Sutton are both concerned with data transfer control in computing systems and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sutton in view of Luke in view of Wadhwa in view of Mahoney in view of Karia because it would provide a way of enabling scrubbing of communications against multiple consent templates across a distributed ledger without revealing consent data.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sutton in view of Luke in view of Wadhwa in view of Mahoney in view of Rahman (US 10,645,545) (as previously cited).
As per claim 11, Sutton in view of Luke in view of Wadhwa in view of Mahoney do not explicitly teach wherein the processor-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, configure the at least one processor to: generate a list of all subscriber systems for a particular data record maintained by the provider system; and send, to the provider system, the list of all subscriber systems for the particular data record.
However, Rahman teaches wherein the processor-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, configure the at least one processor to: generate a list of all subscriber systems for a particular data record maintained by the provider system; and send, to the provider system, the list of all subscriber systems for the particular data record (col. 2, ll. 20-44 for a given service provider, the obtained records can represent communications to/from their customers. Accordingly, the communication network can analyze the obtained records according to a subscriber list to identify the in-network and off-network communications. The communication network can obtain the subscriber list from one or more subscription databases).
Rahman and Sutton are both concerned with data transfer control in computing systems and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sutton in view of Luke in view of Wadhwa in view of Mahoney in view of Rahman because it would provide for a communication network that can use the categorized results to calculate metrics associated with each communications technology. The calculated metrics can then be used to provide increased efficiency for the network. Moreover, the calculated metrics can improve efficiencies in analyzing and structuring/adjusting the network. Since the metrics can represent various consumer use patterns for the communication network, components and/or functions of the communication network can be configured or adjusted e.g., statically and/or dynamically based on the actual usage patterns. Accordingly, new or available resources can be utilized according to the real-time demand or projected demand i.e., calculated based on the actual usage patterns as represented by the calculated metrics. Further, the calculated metrics can be used to generate other commercial opportunities. For example, the partner network metric can be used to identify new business opportunities with other service providers. Also, the in-network and off-network metrics can be used to generate new subscriber plans that benefit the subscribers and the communication network.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments pertaining to the 35 U.S.C. 103 prior art rejections on pg. 8-12 of the Remarks have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendments because the new grounds of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 abstract idea rejections on pg. 7-8 of the Remarks have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In the Remarks on pg. 7-8, Applicant argues that the claims provide an improvement. The examiner respectfully traverses. Applicant points to [0098] of the Specification. However, the improvement in [0098] is only realized when requests of the subscriber system occur after the data processing particulars are confirmed. Although the instant claims recite the language “prior to the subscriber system submitting a data processing request”, the claims fail to then recite that the subscriber system actually submits any data processing requests. In other words, the improvement is only actualized when the subscriber system actually submits data processing requests following the confirmation of the data processing particulars. Contrary to Applicant’s assertion, the claims as most recently amended do not provide any actual/realized improvement. Rather they only provide the potential for the improvement because the claims are silent and absent from the subscriber system actually submitting a data processing request following the confirmation of the data processing particulars. To overcome the rejection, Applicant is advised to amend the claim to strike out the “identify…” limitation of the independent claims and insert text regarding the subscriber system actually submitting a data processing request after the request to confirm the data processing particulars occurs and is successful. Thus, for at least the reasons provided above, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive and the rejections are sustained.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Naujok et al. (US 2022/0350878) disclose subscriber authentication responsive to emergency services registration.
Libonate et al. (US 2015/0312255) disclose encrypting a unique identification header to create different transactional identifiers.
Tom et al. (US 2006/0205434) disclose providing a temporary subscriber identity to a roaming mobile communications device.
Wary (US 2004/0127211) discloses producing a multimedia isolating identifier by a service provider.
Syed (US 2003/0084108) disclose providing a push gateway between consumer devices and remote content providers.
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 Adam Lee whose telephone number is (571) 270-3369. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH 8AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Pierre Vital can be reached on 571-272-4215. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
/Adam Lee/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2198 July 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights