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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/5/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Applicant's “Request for Continued Examination” filed on 11/5/2025 has been considered.
Rejection to Claims 1-4, 6-12, 14-18, 20-23 under 35 USC 101 have not been overcome.
Rejection to Claims 1-16 under nonstatutory double patenting have not been overcome.
Claims 1 and 11 are amended.
Claims 17-20 are cancelled.
Claims 21-22 are added.
Claims 1-16 and 21-22 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 00/00/2016 is being considered by the examiner.
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-4, 6-12, 14-18, 20-23 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11941675. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are anticipated by the claims of U.S. Patent No. 11941675.
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 1-4, 6-12, 14-18, 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Is the claim directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Claims 1-20 are directed to a method, which is a process. Therefore, claims1-20 are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A
Claim 1:
The claim recites A computer-implemented method of operating a data bank of personal data, the method comprising::
receiving a stream of personal data from one or more smart devices, the stream of personal data corresponding to an owner of the personal data;
receiving, at one or more processors from the owner of the personal data, first and second privacy level directives corresponding to the stream of personal data;
notifying, via an indication from the one or more processors, the owner of the personal data of an activated purchase opportunity by one or more consumers of personal data based upon the personal data;
receiving, at the one or more processors from the one or more consumers of personal data, one or more bids associated with first offer terms;
causing, by the one or more processors, an indication of the one or more bids to be presented to the owner of the personal data;
receiving, at the one or more processors from the owner of the personal data, an indication of an acceptance of a set of winning bids of the one or more bids, each of the winning bids corresponding to the first offer terms and being associated with a winning personal data consumer of the one or more consumers of personal data;
causing, via the one or more processors, the stream of personal data to be sanitized according to the first privacy level directive to create a first sanitized stream of personal data by parsing the stream of personal data into a plurality of data segments, flagging each data segment that does not comply with the first privacy level directive, and redacting each flagged data segment in the first sanitized stream by copying each non-flagged data segment into the first sanitized stream and not copying each flagged data segment, such that the first sanitized stream consists of a plurality of non-flagged data segments copied from the stream of personal data; and
granting, via the one or more processors, each winning personal data consumer access to the first sanitized stream of personal data..
Step 2A Prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea?
Accordingly, the claims recite the abstract idea (emphasized limitations above) of bidding for personal data. The above limitations fall within the "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in the 2019 PEG, in that they recite
commercial or legal interactions by reciting marketing or sales activities or behaviors.
Dependent claims 2-6 recite the same abstract ideas identified in claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 2: Is the judicial exception integrated into a practical application?
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements (de-emphasized limitations above) of a computer, a processor, and a data bank. The computer system component steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a generic computer system) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using 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.
Additionally, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to: (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field; (ii) apply the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim; (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; or (iv) apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements do not add anything significantly more than when considered individually.
Therefore, claim 1 does not provide an inventive concept and does not qualify as eligible subject matter.
Accordingly, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, and the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-10 are not integrated into a practical application based on the same analysis as for claim 1 above.
Claim 11 recites a system comprising substantially similar limitations to claim 1, and is rejected with similar reasoning. Claim 11 additionally recites one or more processors, one or more tangible, non-transitory memories communicatively connected to the one or more processors and storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors. These additional limitations only generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, and do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 12-16 recite the same abstract ideas identified in claim 11.
Claim 17 recites a computer-readable medium comprising substantially similar limitations to claim 1, and is rejected with similar reasoning.
Dependent claims 18-20 recite the same abstract ideas identified in claim 11.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4, 6-12, 14-18, 20-23 are allowable over the prior art though rejected on other grounds (e.g. 35 USC 101, double patenting) as discussed above. The combination of elements and the claim as a whole are not found in the prior art.
Regarding Claim 1, although Horovits (US 20130006748 A1) discloses A computer-readable medium having computer-executable instructions for operating a data bank of personal data stored thereon that, when executed by one or more processors of a system, cause the system to: ([abstract]), receive a stream of personal data from one or more smart devices, the stream of personal data corresponding to an owner of the personal data; ([0015] ) receive, from the owner of the personal data, first and second privacy level directives corresponding to the stream of personal data; ([0017]; receiving, from a plurality of consumers of personal data including a first personal data consumer . . . first offer terms ([fig 2 element 158]) receiving, from a second personal data consumer, second offer terms ([fig 3 element 158]) presenting, via the one or more processors, the first offer terms . . . to facilitate operating a data bank of personal data and/or receiving offers for access to personal data ([fig 2 element 163]) presenting, via the one or more processors, the second offer terms, to the owner of the personal data, to facilitate operating a data bank of personal data and/or receiving offers for access to personal data ([fig 3 element 163]) receiving, at the one or more processors from the owner of the personal data, an indication of an acceptance of a set of winning bids of the one or more bids, each of the winning bids corresponding to the first offer terms and being associated with a winning personal data consumer of the one or more consumers of personal data; ([fig 2 elements 212 and 216]) causing, via the one or more processors, the stream of personal data to be sanitized according to the first privacy level directive to create a first sanitized stream of personal data; and ([0021]) [here, the shared data teaches claimed “creating a first sanitized stream of personal data” which has been sanitized according to the granularity of location information - that is, the location data has been sanitized by sharing a general location rather than a specific one]); ([0021]) and granting, via the one or more processors, each winning personal data consumer access to the first sanitized stream of personal data. ([0026]);
and Perler (US 20130211876 A1) teaches notifying, via an indication from the one or more processors, the owner of the personal data of an activated purchase opportunity by one or more consumers of personal data based upon the personal data; ([claim 4]; receiving, at the one or more processors from the one or more consumers of personal data, one or more bids associated with first offer terms; causing, by the one or more processors, an indication of the one or more bids to be presented to the owner of the personal data; ([claim 4]).
And Cupp (US 11418483 B1) teaches create a first sanitized stream of personal data by parsing the stream of personal data into a plurality of data segments, flagging each data segment that does not comply with the first privacy level directive, and redacting each flagged data segment in the first sanitized stream by copying each non-flagged data segment into the first sanitized stream; ([Col 20 LN 50-60] [Col 13 Ln 20-25]);
neither Horovits nor Perler nor Cupp, nor the totality of the prior art anticipate or render obvious causing, via the one or more processors, the stream of personal data to be sanitized according to the first privacy level directive to create a first sanitized stream of personal data by parsing the stream of personal data into a plurality of data segments, flagging each data segment that does not comply with the first privacy level directive, and redacting each flagged data segment in the first sanitized stream by copying each non-flagged data segment into the first sanitized stream and not copying each flagged data segment, such that the first sanitized stream consists of a plurality of non-flagged data segments copied from the stream of personal data;.
Claims 2-4, 6-10 are dependent upon allowable claim 1.
Regarding Claim 11, the claim recites substantially similar limitations as claim 1, and recites allowable subject matter for substantially similar reasons.
Claims 12, 14-16 are dependent upon allowable claim 11.
Regarding Claim 17, the claim recites substantially similar limitations as claim 1, and recites allowable subject matter for substantially similar reasons.
Claims 18, 20-23 are dependent upon allowable claim 17.
While the prior art teaches some aspects and features of claims 1, 11 and 17, for each claim above, the Examiner emphasizes the unique combination of features as a whole and hereby asserts that the totality of the evidence fails to set forth, either explicitly or implicitly, an appropriate rationale for combining or otherwise modifying the available prior art to arrive at the claimed invention. The combination of features as claimed would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because any combination of the evidence at hand to reach the combination of features as claimed would require a substantial reconstruction of Applicant’s claimed invention relying on improper hindsight bias.
Notably, these claims remain rejected on other grounds (e.g. double patenting, 35 USC 101) as discussed above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to the rejection of claims under nonstatutory double patenting have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues claimed “not copying each flagged data segment, such that the first sanitized stream consists of a plurality of non-flagged data segments copied from the stream of personal data;” is not an abstract idea and/or integrates any abstract idea into a practical application by improving the technical field of data security and management for streams of personal data by the generation of a first sanitized stream of personal data.
Examiner disagrees. Creating a sanitized stream of personal data by not copying flagged data segments is a method of organizing human activity that could be performed, albeit less efficiently, by humans manually. Masking information and not including it in copied data is not a technical solution to a technical problem and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Specifically, not copying particular information does not improve any computer or technology, but rather solves a business problem of protecting sensitive customer information.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejection of the claim under 35 USC 103 have been considered.
Examiner directs Applicant’s attention to the allowable subject matter indicated, above. Specifically, the cited references do not teach not copying each flagged data segment, such that the first sanitized stream consists of a plurality of non-flagged data segments copied from the stream of personal data.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
T. Masubuchi, M. Takatsuka and R. Sasaki, "A Digital Document Flexible Sanitizing Scheme," 2006 International Conference on Intelligent Information Hiding and Multimedia, Pasadena, CA, USA, 2006, pp. 89-92, doi: 10.1109/IIH-MSP.2006.264961. keywords: {Digital signatures;Privacy;Information security;National security;Government;Business;Internet;Protection;Signal processing;Random number generation}, discussing issues with sanitizing documents for security. Masubuchi does not teach the claims as a whole.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michelle T. Kringen whose telephone number is (571)270-0159. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 11am-7pm.
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, Marissa Thein can be reached at (571)272-6764. 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.
/MICHELLE T KRINGEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689