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 .
The following is a Non-Final Office Action in response to communications received on October 12, 2023 and February 3, 2026. Claims 2-6 and 9 are pending and addressed below.
Response to Election Requirement
Applicant has elected group I without traverse. Therefore, claims 2-6 and 9 are pending and addressed below. Claims 7, 8, 10 and 11 are withdrawn from consideration.
Specification
For the record, Examiner acknowledges that the Specification submitted on October 12, 2023 has been accepted.
Drawings
For the record, Examiner acknowledges that the Drawings submitted on October 12, 2023 have been accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the data”. There are multiple previously recited data and it is unclear as to which particular data the limitation is referring. Dependent claims 3-6 are rejected for containing the same indefinite language as parent claim 2 without further remedying the indefinite language.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the data”. There are multiple previously recited data and it is unclear as to which particular data the limitation is referring. Also, claim 9 recites the limitation “the management apparatus.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 6 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Veltman et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0370487 and hereinafter referred to as Veltman) in view of Babcock et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0147648 and hereinafter referred to as Babcock) in view of Hunt et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0070012 and hereinafter referred to as Hunt).
As to claim 2, Veltman discloses a data distribution method comprising:
first terminal equipment acquiring a data item requested by a consumer of data, the first terminal equipment being used by an owner of data (paragraphs [0015]-[0016] and [0025], Veltman teaches a user inputs private information into a user device when requested by a retailer);
at least one processor generating, in a case where the owner has permitted disclosure of data concerning the data item to the consumer, disclosure permission information which means that the owner has permitted disclosure of the data to the consumer and which is unique in a management apparatus managing the data (paragraphs [0015]-[0016] and [0022], Veltman teaches generating a token for users related to user consents for private information access);
at least one processor storing, in a case where the owner has permitted disclosure of data concerning the data item to the consumer, the disclosure permission information in storage capable of being read by the management apparatus, with the disclosure permission information being associated with the data item permitted (paragraphs [0011], [0015]-[0016], [0020] and [0022], Veltman teaches storing the consents for the private information access);
the second terminal equipment sending, to the management apparatus, the disclosure permission information acquired (paragraphs [0013], [0015]-[0016], [0020] and [0022], Veltman teaches the retailer transmitting the token); and
the management apparatus returning, to the second terminal equipment, the data concerning the data item associated with the disclosure permission information sent (paragraphs [0015]-[0016] and [0020]-[0022], Veltman teaches returning the private information if permitted to do so.). Veltman does not specifically disclose the first terminal equipment outputting the disclosure permission information and access information for access to the management apparatus so that second terminal equipment used by the consumer can acquire the disclosure permission information and the access information directly from the first terminal equipment as claimed. However, Brannon does disclose
the first terminal equipment outputting the disclosure permission information and information so that second terminal equipment used by the consumer can acquire the disclosure permission information and the access information directly from the first terminal equipment (paragraphs [0055], [0098], [0101] and [0105], Babcock teaches a user device displays a QR code encoding multiple types of information including privacy of personal information.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Veltman with the teachings of Babcock for having the first terminal equipment outputting the disclosure permission information because this would improve ease of use.
The combination of teachings between Veltman and Babcock does not specifically disclose the first terminal equipment outputting the disclosure permission information and access information for access to the management apparatus (emphasis added) as claimed. However, Hunt does disclose
the first terminal equipment outputting the disclosure permission information and access information for access to the management apparatus (paragraphs [0029]-[0031], Hunt teaches QR code containing multiple types of information including URL information for access.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified invention of Veltman with the teachings of Hunt for having access information for access to the management apparatus because this would improve ease of use and flexibility.
Claim 9 recites substantially similar subject matter to claim 2 and is therefore, rejected for similar reasons to claim 2 above.
As to claim 3, the combination of teachings between Veltman, Babcock and Hunt disclose the data distribution method according to claim 2, wherein the data item requested by the consumer is presented as an information code capable of being read by the first terminal equipment (paragraphs [0064], [0067] and [0070], Babcock teaches reading product information.).
Examiner supplies the same rationale for the combination of the references as in claim 2 above.
As to claim 6, the combination of teachings between Veltman, Babcock and Hunt disclose the data distribution method according to claim 2, wherein the disclosure permission information and access information for access to the management apparatus are displayed as an information code capable of being read by the second terminal equipment, on a display section of the first terminal equipment (paragraphs [0055], [0098], [0101] and [0105], Babcock teaches a user device displays a QR code encoding multiple types of information including privacy of personal information. paragraphs [0029]-[0031], Hunt teaches QR code containing multiple types of information including URL information for access.).
Examiner supplies the same rationale for the combination of the references as in claim 2 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 4 recites, inter alia, “in response to acceptance, from the owner, of an input operation indicating that disclosure of the data to the consumer has been permitted, the first terminal equipment is configured to generate the disclosure permission information and send, to the management apparatus, a data item read from the information code and the disclosure permission information”. The prior art was not found to disclose the cited limitations in combination with the other limitations. Therefore, claim 4 is considered to recite allowable subject matter over the prior art.
Claim 5 recites, inter alia, “in response to acceptance, from the owner, of an input operation indicating that disclosure of the data to the consumer has been permitted, the first terminal equipment is configured to send, to the management apparatus, a data item read from the information code and information regarding the consumer”. The prior art was not found to disclose the cited limitations in combination with the other limitations. Therefore, claim 5 is considered to recite allowable subject matter over the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THADDEUS J PLECHA whose telephone number is (571)270-7506. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30.
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, Taghi Arani can be reached at 571-272-3787. 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.
/THADDEUS J PLECHA/Examiner, Art Unit 2438
Prosecution Insights