DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to arguments filed 7/06/2026. Claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-17 and 19-22 are pending.
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 arguments filed 7/6/2026 have been fully considered.
1) Applicant's arguments with respect to the 103 rejection that Angara in view of Suga in view of Terrill and view of Bekker does not teach “receiving, by the GUI, first user input corresponding to selection of the first data broker” and “in response to receiving the first input displaying on the GUI the PII profile stored by the first data broker” have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding 1) Angara teaches “receiving, by the GUI, first user input corresponding to selection of the first data broker” in column 8 lines 11-23 i.e. at action 218, requesting to view the PII along with an indicator of the organization website to which the PII was submitted and, at action 220, receiving the request. For example, the user 103 may request, at action 218, to view all of the PII that the user 103 has submitted to the organization websites 118a-118n, along with an indicator (e.g., a website name or an organization name) of the organization website to which the PII was submitted, and the PII application 112 and/or the PII application 115 may receive, at action 220, the request. In some embodiments, the request at action 218 may be accomplished in the browser 110 or in another application on the client 104. Angara teaches “in response to receiving the first input displaying on the GUI the PII profile stored by the first data broker” in column 8 lines 37-49 i.e. the method 200 may include, at action 226, displaying each of the PII along with the indicator of the organization website to which the PII was submitted. For example, the PII application 112 and/or the PII application 115 may display, at action 226, displaying each of the PII along with the indicator (e.g., a website name such as “Amazon Store” or “Gmail Inbox” or an organization name such as “Amazon” or “Gmail”) of the organization website to which the PII was submitted. This display may be accomplished on the client 104 or on some other device, such as by displaying a list of all of the PII and the corresponding organization websites in a webpage.
2) Applicant's arguments with respect to the 103 rejection that Angara in view of Suga in view of Terrill and view of Bekker does not teach “receive by the GUI second user input corresponding to a verification decision of the PII profile to remove the PII profile from the first data broker” have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding 2) Angara teaches receive by the GUI second user input corresponding to a verification decision of the PII profile to remove the PII profile from the first data broker in column 8 lines 50-59 i.e. The method 200 may include, at action 228, requesting for a selected one of the PII to be deleted by the organization website to which the PII was submitted and, at action 230 receiving the request. For example, the user 103 may request, at action 228, for a selected one of the PII to be deleted (e.g., selected by the user 103 by clicking on one of the PII from the displayed list of PII) by the organization website 118a to which the PII was submitted, and the PII application 112 and/or the PII application 115 may, at action 230, receive the request. As well as column 9 lines 28-45 i.e The method 200 may include, at action 240, determining whether the original hash matches any of the stored verification hashes. If so (yes at action 240), the method 200 may include, at action 242, deleting the PII corresponding to the matching verification hash. If not (not at action 240), the method 200 may include, at action 244, sending a rejection message. For example, the organization website 118a may determine, at action 240, whether the original hash (received at action 238) matches any of the verification hashes that were previously stored in the organization PII storage 122a (stored at action 210). In some embodiments, the determining at action 240 may further include determining that the specified hash is found in a blockchain storing hashes corresponding to PII for which deletion is authorized. In these embodiments, the deleting at action 242 and column 9 lines 39-45 i.e. the determining at action 240 may further include determining that the specified hash is found in a blockchain storing hashes corresponding to PII for which deletion is authorized.
3) Applicant's arguments with respect to the 103 rejection that Angara in view of Suga in view of Terrill and view of Bekker does not teach “wherein the second user input includes a swipe motion in a first direction indicating that the first PII is to be removed from the first data broker” have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding 3) Terrill teaches wherein the second user input includes a swipe motion in a first direction indicating that the data (i.e. first PII) is to be removed from the first data broker in column 12 lines 23-30 i.e. Additionally, in some embodiments a user may delete an image by performing a swipe gesture in the direction indicated by arrow 722, (e.g., by “pushing” the image up until it disappears from the screen 710). Similarly, in some embodiments a user may save an image as a separate image by performing a swipe gesture in the direction indicated by arrow 724 (e.g., by “pulling” the image down until it disappears from the screen 710)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Angara and Suga in view of Terrill to have used swipe gestures input actions as they are well known in the art (see Terrill column 12 lines 23-30). Therefore one would have been motivated to have deleted data by swiping them in one direction and saving data swiping in another direction.
4) In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Examiner has provide motivation for combining each of the references below in the 103 rejection.
For combining Angara in view of Suga it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Angara in view of Suga to have the organization website transmit a signed a proof of the removal to the management device as a way to monitor for compliance of the removal request (see Suge paragraph 0256).
For combining Angara/Suga in view of Terrill. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Angara and Suga in view of Terrill to have used swipe gestures input actions as they are well known in the art (see Terrill column 12 lines 23-30). Therefore one would have been motivated to have deleted data by swiping them in one direction and saving data swiping in another direction.
For combining Angara/Suga/Terrill in view of Bekker. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Angara, Suga and Terrill in view of Bekker to have also been able to remove PII data and profile if the PII data in the user’s profile does not correspond to the user as a way to protect the users PII (see Bekker paragraph 0876-0881). Therefore one would have been motivated to have removed PPI not correspond to the user.
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 1-2, 6-9, 13-16, 19, 20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Angara et al (US 11,496,446) in view of Suga et al (US 2023/0105706) in view of Terrill et al (US 9,325,876) in view of Bekker (US 2013/0179988).
With respect to claim 1 Angara teaches a method of protecting and verifying personally identifiable information (PII), comprising:
retrieving a PII profile for a user comprising PII stored by a first data broker (see Angara column 8 lines 11-32 i.e. The method 200 may include, at action 218, requesting to view the PII along with an indicator of the organization website to which the PII was submitted and, at action 220, receiving the request. For example, the user 103 may request, at action 218, to view all of the PII that the user 103 has submitted to the organization websites 118a-118n, along with an indicator (e.g., a website name or an organization name) of the organization website to which the PII was submitted, and the PII application 112 and/or the PII application 115 may receive, at action 220, the request. In some embodiments, the request at action 218 may be accomplished in the browser 110 or in another application on the client 104. The method 200 may include, at action 222, retrieving each of the encrypted PII along with the identifier of the organization website to which the PII was submitted. For example, the PII application 112 and/or the PII application 115 may retrieve, at action 222, each of the encrypted PII, along with the identifier (e.g., a domain or a URL) of the organization website to which the PII was submitted, from the PII storage 114 and/or from the PII storage 116 and/or from a blockchain.);
generating a dynamically updatable PII profile graphical user interface (GUI) configured to displays a listing of one or more data brokers including the first data broker (see Angara column 8 lines 37-49 i.e. the method 200 may include, at action 226, displaying each of the PII along with the indicator of the organization website to which the PII was submitted. For example, the PII application 112 and/or the PII application 115 may display, at action 226, displaying each of the PII along with the indicator (e.g., a website name such as “Amazon Store” or “Gmail Inbox” or an organization name such as “Amazon” or “Gmail”) of the organization website to which the PII was submitted. This display may be accomplished on the client 104 or on some other device, such as by displaying a list of all of the PII and the corresponding organization websites in a webpage);
receive by the GUI first user input corresponding to selection of the first data broker; in response to receiving the first input displaying on the GUI the PII profile stored by the first data broker (see Angara column 8 lines 37-49 i.e. the method 200 may include, at action 226, displaying each of the PII along with the indicator of the organization website to which the PII was submitted. For example, the PII application 112 and/or the PII application 115 may display, at action 226, displaying each of the PII along with the indicator (e.g., a website name such as “Amazon Store” or “Gmail Inbox” or an organization name such as “Amazon” or “Gmail”) of the organization website to which the PII was submitted. This display may be accomplished on the client 104 or on some other device, such as by displaying a list of all of the PII and the corresponding organization websites in a webpage);
receive by the GUI second user input corresponding to a verification decision of the PII profile to remove the PII profile from the first data broker (see Angara column 8 lines 50-59 i.e. The method 200 may include, at action 228, requesting for a selected one of the PII to be deleted by the organization website to which the PII was submitted and, at action 230 receiving the request. For example, the user 103 may request, at action 228, for a selected one of the PII to be deleted (e.g., selected by the user 103 by clicking on one of the PII from the displayed list of PII) by the organization website 118a to which the PII was submitted, and the PII application 112 and/or the PII application 115 may, at action 230, receive the request and column 9 lines 28-45 i.e The method 200 may include, at action 240, determining whether the original hash matches any of the stored verification hashes. If so (yes at action 240), the method 200 may include, at action 242, deleting the PII corresponding to the matching verification hash. If not (not at action 240), the method 200 may include, at action 244, sending a rejection message. For example, the organization website 118a may determine, at action 240, whether the original hash (received at action 238) matches any of the verification hashes that were previously stored in the organization PII storage 122a (stored at action 210). In some embodiments, the determining at action 240 may further include determining that the specified hash is found in a blockchain storing hashes corresponding to PII for which deletion is authorized. In these embodiments, the deleting at action 242 and column 9 lines 39-45 i.e. the determining at action 240 may further include determining that the specified hash is found in a blockchain storing hashes corresponding to PII for which deletion is authorized);
responsive to receipt of the second user input, providing an instruction to the first data broker on an action (see Angara column 4 lines 27-37 i.e. Further in some embodiments, a user may easily request that a selected PII (e.g., that the user selects from the list of all shared PII with a single click) be deleted by the organization website to which the selected PII was submitted. When such a request is received, the browser or browser plugin (or other application) may automatically request deletion of the PII by the organization website on behalf of the user and column 9 lines 16-18 i.e. at action 236, requesting that the organization website delete the PII associated with the original hash and, at action 238, receiving the request).
Angara does not explicitly teach wherein the second user input includes a swipe motion in a first direction indicating that the first PII is to be removed from the first data broker; when the second input indicates that the first PII does not correspond to the user, causing removal of PII from the PII profile of the user stored by the first data broker or monitoring for compliance by the first data broker of the action set forth in the instruction.
Suga teaches monitoring for compliance by the first data broker of the action set forth in the instruction (see Suga paragraph 0256-0257 i.e. assume that in step S508 illustrated in FIG. 23, the removal request receipt unit 318 of the server 300B removes the personal information of a user from the personal information storage area 330 according to a removal request from the removal unit 115 (FIG. 18) of the management device 100. Next, in step S508A, the security module 317 (FIG. 20) signs a proof of the removal and generates signature information (creates a signature). Next, in step S509A, the removal request receipt unit 318 notifies the management device 100 of a removal completion notification indicating that the personal information of the user was removed in step S508 above and the signature information created by the security module 317).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Angara in view of Suga to have the organization website transmit a signed a proof of the removal to the management device as a way to monitor for compliance of the removal request (see Suge paragraph 0256).
Angara and Suga and do not explicitly teach wherein the second user input includes a swipe motion in a first direction indicating that the first PII is to be removed from the first data broker; when the second input indicates that the first PII does not correspond to the user, causing removal of PII from the PII profile of the user stored by the first data broker
Terrill teaches wherein the second user input includes a swipe motion in a first direction indicating that the data (i.e. first PII) is to be removed from the first data broker (see Terrill column 12 lines 23-30 i.e. Additionally, in some embodiments a user may delete an image by performing a swipe gesture in the direction indicated by arrow 722, (e.g., by “pushing” the image up until it disappears from the screen 710). Similarly, in some embodiments a user may save an image as a separate image by performing a swipe gesture in the direction indicated by arrow 724 (e.g., by “pulling” the image down until it disappears from the screen 710)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Angara and Suga in view of Terrill to have used swipe gestures input actions as they are well known in the art (see Terrill column 12 lines 23-30). Therefore one would have been motivated to have deleted data by swiping them in one direction and saving data swiping in another direction.
Angara, Suga and Terrill does not disclose when the second input indicates that the first PII does not correspond to the user, causing removal of PII from the PII profile of the user stored by the first data broker.
Bekker teaches when the second input indicates that the first PII does not correspond to the user, causing removal of PII from the PII profile of the user stored by the first data broker (see Bekker paragraph 0876-0881 i.e. Step C: Customer Opens Alert to Review. Here is what is presented to the customer: the alert details, what PII was used to find the alert, Alert content, Chance to approve the record "I agree with this information" or "YES THIS IS MINE" in this example, Chance to disapprove the record "I don't understand or know this information" or "NO THIS IS NOT MINE" in this example and paragraph 0883-0884 i.e. Step D: Approval Popup, If they click "Approve Record", they are triggered with a popup to confirm the validity of the record. FIG. 9.D (see also Step D) illustrates an example of a popup window where a potential threat is marked as approved and where the system is prompting the user for validation, which can include a confirmation button, which is labeled "APPROVE RECORDS" in this example).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Angara, Suga and Terrill in view of Bekker to have also been able to remove PII data and profile if the PII data in the user’s profile does not correspond to the user as a way to protect the users PII (see Bekker paragraph 0876-0881). Therefore one would have been motivated to have removed PPI not correspond to the user.
With respect to claim 2 Angara, Suga, Terrill and Bekker teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the PII profile includes one or more of a user account, a social security number, an address, a data of birth, or a phone number (see Angara column 1 lines 7-29 i.e. PII generally relates to any information that can be used to distinguish or trace an individual's identity (such as name, social security number, date and place of birth, mother's maiden name, or biometric records) and any other information that is linked or linkable to an individual (such as medical, educational, financial, and employment information)).
With respect to claim 6 Angara, Suga, Terrill and Bekker teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the dynamically updatable PII profile GUI illustrates a first data broker and the PII profile, and wherein the dynamically updatable PII profile GUI includes a first user interface (UI) element configured to receive additional the user input corresponding to confirming that the PII profile corresponds to the user (see Bekker paragraph 0876-0881 i.e. Step C: Customer Opens Alert to Review. Here is what is presented to the customer: the alert details, what PII was used to find the alert, Alert content, Chance to approve the record "I agree with this information" or "YES THIS IS MINE" in this example, Chance to disapprove the record "I don't understand or know this information" or "NO THIS IS NOT MINE" in this example and paragraph 0883-0884 i.e. Step D: Approval Popup, If they click "Approve Record", they are triggered with a popup to confirm the validity of the record. FIG. 9.D (see also Step D) illustrates an example of a popup window where a potential threat is marked as approved and where the system is prompting the user for validation, which can include a confirmation button, which is labeled "APPROVE RECORDS" in this example).
With respect to claim 7 Angara, Suga, Terrill and Bekker teaches the method of claim 6, wherein the dynamically updatable PII profile GUI further includes a second UI element configured to receive additional user input corresponding to instructions to display one or more of (i) from where a first data broker obtained information of the PII profile, or (ii) whether the user provided consent to the first data broker for the PII profile (see Bekker paragraph 0875 i.e. The "My Monitoring" field can display a date corresponding with the last scan, and three sub-sections corresponding with Internet monitoring, Credit monitoring and Public Records monitoring functions. The sub-sections can display a number of active threats. A warning icon can be used to flag a new identity alert, in this example, a logo having a triangle with an exclamation point inside the triangle is used. A confirmation icon can be used when no thread exists, in this example, a check mark logo is used. The "My Restoration" field can display a phone number associated with a customer service department, and a button allowing the user to access threat reporting functionality, in this case, a "REPORT A THREAT" button is provided).
With respect to claim 8 Angara teaches a computing device, comprising: a processor; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations including: retrieving a PII profile for a user comprising PII stored by a first data broker (see Angara column 8 lines 11-32 i.e. The method 200 may include, at action 218, requesting to view the PII along with an indicator of the organization website to which the PII was submitted and, at action 220, receiving the request. For example, the user 103 may request, at action 218, to view all of the PII that the user 103 has submitted to the organization websites 118a-118n, along with an indicator (e.g., a website name or an organization name) of the organization website to which the PII was submitted, and the PII application 112 and/or the PII application 115 may receive, at action 220, the request. In some embodiments, the request at action 218 may be accomplished in the browser 110 or in another application on the client 104. The method 200 may include, at action 222, retrieving each of the encrypted PII along with the identifier of the organization website to which the PII was submitted. For example, the PII application 112 and/or the PII application 115 may retrieve, at action 222, each of the encrypted PII, along with the identifier (e.g., a domain or a URL) of the organization website to which the PII was submitted, from the PII storage 114 and/or from the PII storage 116 and/or from a blockchain.);
generating a dynamically updatable PII profile graphical user interface (GUI) configured to displays a listing of one or more data brokers including the first data broker (see Angara column 8 lines 37-49 i.e. the method 200 may include, at action 226, displaying each of the PII along with the indicator of the organization website to which the PII was submitted. For example, the PII application 112 and/or the PII application 115 may display, at action 226, displaying each of the PII along with the indicator (e.g., a website name such as “Amazon Store” or “Gmail Inbox” or an organization name such as “Amazon” or “Gmail”) of the organization website to which the PII was submitted. This display may be accomplished on the client 104 or on some other device, such as by displaying a list of all of the PII and the corresponding organization websites in a webpage);
receive by the GUI first user input corresponding to selection of the first data broker; in response to receiving the first input displaying on the GUI the PII profile stored by the first data broker (see Angara column 8 lines 37-49 i.e. the method 200 may include, at action 226, displaying each of the PII along with the indicator of the organization website to which the PII was submitted. For example, the PII application 112 and/or the PII application 115 may display, at action 226, displaying each of the PII along with the indicator (e.g., a website name such as “Amazon Store” or “Gmail Inbox” or an organization name such as “Amazon” or “Gmail”) of the organization website to which the PII was submitted. This display may be accomplished on the client 104 or on some other device, such as by displaying a list of all of the PII and the corresponding organization websites in a webpage);
receive by the GUI second user input corresponding to a verification decision of the PII profile to remove the PII profile from the first data broker (see Angara column 8 lines 50-59 i.e. The method 200 may include, at action 228, requesting for a selected one of the PII to be deleted by the organization website to which the PII was submitted and, at action 230 receiving the request. For example, the user 103 may request, at action 228, for a selected one of the PII to be deleted (e.g., selected by the user 103 by clicking on one of the PII from the displayed list of PII) by the organization website 118a to which the PII was submitted, and the PII application 112 and/or the PII application 115 may, at action 230, receive the request and column 9 lines 28-45 i.e The method 200 may include, at action 240, determining whether the original hash matches any of the stored verification hashes. If so (yes at action 240), the method 200 may include, at action 242, deleting the PII corresponding to the matching verification hash. If not (not at action 240), the method 200 may include, at action 244, sending a rejection message. For example, the organization website 118a may determine, at action 240, whether the original hash (received at action 238) matches any of the verification hashes that were previously stored in the organization PII storage 122a (stored at action 210). In some embodiments, the determining at action 240 may further include determining that the specified hash is found in a blockchain storing hashes corresponding to PII for which deletion is authorized. In these embodiments, the deleting at action 242 and column 9 lines 39-45 i.e. the determining at action 240 may further include determining that the specified hash is found in a blockchain storing hashes corresponding to PII for which deletion is authorized).
responsive to receipt of the second user input, providing an instruction to the first data broker on an action (see Angara column 4 lines 27-37 i.e. Further in some embodiments, a user may easily request that a selected PII (e.g., that the user selects from the list of all shared PII with a single click) be deleted by the organization website to which the selected PII was submitted. When such a request is received, the browser or browser plugin (or other application) may automatically request deletion of the PII by the organization website on behalf of the user and column 9 lines 16-18 i.e. at action 236, requesting that the organization website delete the PII associated with the original hash and, at action 238, receiving the request).
Angara does not explicitly teach wherein the second user input includes a swipe motion in a first direction indicating that the first PII is to be removed from the first data broker; when the second input indicates that the first PII does not correspond to the user, causing removal of PII from the PII profile of the user stored by the first data broker or monitoring for compliance by the first data broker of the action set forth in the instruction.
Suga teaches monitoring for compliance by the first data broker of the action set forth in the instruction (see Suga paragraph 0256-0257 i.e. assume that in step S508 illustrated in FIG. 23, the removal request receipt unit 318 of the server 300B removes the personal information of a user from the personal information storage area 330 according to a removal request from the removal unit 115 (FIG. 18) of the management device 100. Next, in step S508A, the security module 317 (FIG. 20) signs a proof of the removal and generates signature information (creates a signature). Next, in step S509A, the removal request receipt unit 318 notifies the management device 100 of a removal completion notification indicating that the personal information of the user was removed in step S508 above and the signature information created by the security module 317).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Angara in view of Suga to have the organization website transmit a signed a proof of the removal to the management device as a way to monitor for compliance of the removal request (see Suge paragraph 0256).
Angara and Suga and do not explicitly teach wherein the second user input includes a swipe motion in a first direction indicating that the first PII is to be removed from the first data broker; when the second input indicates that the first PII does not correspond to the user, causing removal of PII from the PII profile of the user stored by the first data broker
Terrill teaches wherein the second user input includes a swipe motion in a first direction indicating that the data (i.e. first PII) is to be removed from the first data broker (see Terrill column 12 lines 23-30 i.e. Additionally, in some embodiments a user may delete an image by performing a swipe gesture in the direction indicated by arrow 722, (e.g., by “pushing” the image up until it disappears from the screen 710). Similarly, in some embodiments a user may save an image as a separate image by performing a swipe gesture in the direction indicated by arrow 724 (e.g., by “pulling” the image down until it disappears from the screen 710)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Angara and Suga in view of Terrill to have used swipe gestures input actions as they are well known in the art (see Terrill column 12 lines 23-30). Therefore one would have been motivated to have deleted data by swiping them in one direction and saving data swiping in another direction.
Angara, Suga and Terrill does not disclose when the second input indicates that the first PII does not correspond to the user, causing removal of PII from the PII profile of the user stored by the first data broker.
Bekker teaches when the second input indicates that the first PII does not correspond to the user, causing removal of PII from the PII profile of the user stored by the first data broker (see Bekker paragraph 0876-0881 i.e. Step C: Customer Opens Alert to Review. Here is what is presented to the customer: the alert details, what PII was used to find the alert, Alert content, Chance to approve the record "I agree with this information" or "YES THIS IS MINE" in this example, Chance to disapprove the record "I don't understand or know this information" or "NO THIS IS NOT MINE" in this example and paragraph 0883-0884 i.e. Step D: Approval Popup, If they click "Approve Record", they are triggered with a popup to confirm the validity of the record. FIG. 9.D (see also Step D) illustrates an example of a popup window where a potential threat is marked as approved and where the system is prompting the user for validation, which can include a confirmation button, which is labeled "APPROVE RECORDS" in this example).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Angara, Suga and Terrill in view of Bekker to have also been able to remove PII data and profile if the PII data in the user’s profile does not correspond to the user as a way to protect the users PII (see Bekker paragraph 0876-0881). Therefore one would have been motivated to have removed PPI not correspond to the user.
With respect to claim 9 Angara, Suga, Terrill and Bekker teaches the computing device of claim 8, wherein the user PII includes one or more of a user account, a social security number, an address, a data of birth, or a phone number (see Angara column 1 lines 7-29 i.e. PII generally relates to any information that can be used to distinguish or trace an individual's identity (such as name, social security number, date and place of birth, mother's maiden name, or biometric records) and any other information that is linked or linkable to an individual (such as medical, educational, financial, and employment information)).
With respect to claim 10 Angara, Suga, Terrill and Bekker teaches the computing device of claim 8, wherein establishing the PII profile includes: obtaining initial PII from the user; and based on the initial PII, obtaining additional PII from one or more external data sources (see Bekker paragraph 0875 i.e. Step B: Customer Logs into Dashboard and Sees Alert. FIG. 9.B (see also Step B) illustrates an example of a dashboard including an alert according to the Identity Alert Management. The dashboard can include one or more of a horizontal status bar displaying a current identity protection level with a percentage associated with the level of the current identity protection level for the user, which can include a scale from 0 to 100 percent graded along 25 percent intervals. The color of the bar associated with the current identity protection level can transition through different colors associated with certain levels of the current identity protection level. For example, red can be used at a lower end of the scale, yellow can be used in the middle of the scale and green can be used at the higher end of the scale. Other color combinations can be employed. Also, the right side of the current identity protection level status bar can include an icon showing an unlocked lock and a warning message such as "Potential Threat Detected," which can be provided with a red background. The dashboard can also comprise three primary fields, "My Wallet," "My Monitoring" and "My Restoration" in this example. The "My Wallet" field can display an icon (a stylized wallet containing stylized credit cards and bearing a corporate logo, in this example), a number of items that are secured and protected (in this example, "28"), and a button allowing the user to access the Wallet function of the website. The button can include a drop down menu with additional options associated with the Wallet function. The "My Monitoring" field can display a date corresponding with the last scan, and three sub-sections corresponding with Internet monitoring, Credit monitoring and Public Records monitoring functions. The sub-sections can display a number of active threats. A warning icon can be used to flag a new identity alert, in this example, a logo having a triangle with an exclamation point inside the triangle is used. A confirmation icon can be used when no thread exists, in this example, a check mark logo is used. The "My Restoration" field can display a phone number associated with a customer service department, and a button allowing the user to access threat reporting functionality, in this case, a "REPORT A THREAT" button is provided and paragraph 0090).
With respect to claim 13 Angara, Suga, Terrill and Bekker teaches the computing device of claim 8, wherein the dynamically updatable PII profile GUI illustrates a first data broker and the PII profile, and wherein the dynamically updatable PII profile GUI includes a first user interface (UI) element configured to receive additional the user input corresponding to confirming that the PII profile corresponds to the user (see Bekker paragraph 0876-0881 i.e. Step C: Customer Opens Alert to Review. Here is what is presented to the customer: the alert details, what PII was used to find the alert, Alert content, Chance to approve the record "I agree with this information" or "YES THIS IS MINE" in this example, Chance to disapprove the record "I don't understand or know this information" or "NO THIS IS NOT MINE" in this example and paragraph 0883-0884 i.e. Step D: Approval Popup, If they click "Approve Record", they are triggered with a popup to confirm the validity of the record. FIG. 9.D (see also Step D) illustrates an example of a popup window where a potential threat is marked as approved and where the system is prompting the user for validation, which can include a confirmation button, which is labeled "APPROVE RECORDS" in this example).
With respect to claim 14 Angara, Suga, Terrill and Bekker teaches the computing device of claim 13, wherein the dynamically updatable PII profile GUI further includes a second UI element configured to receive additional user input corresponding to instructions to display one or more of (i) from where a first data broker obtained the portion of the PII profile, or (ii) whether the user provided consent to the first data broker for the portion of the PII profile (see Bekker paragraph 0875 i.e. The "My Monitoring" field can display a date corresponding with the last scan, and three sub-sections corresponding with Internet monitoring, Credit monitoring and Public Records monitoring functions. The sub-sections can display a number of active threats. A warning icon can be used to flag a new identity alert, in this example, a logo having a triangle with an exclamation point inside the triangle is used. A confirmation icon can be used when no thread exists, in this example, a check mark logo is used. The "My Restoration" field can display a phone number associated with a customer service department, and a button allowing the user to access threat reporting functionality, in this case, a "REPORT A THREAT" button is provided).
With respect to claim 15 Angara teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon instructions that, when processed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations including:
retrieving a PII profile for a user comprising PII stored by a first data broker (see Angara column 8 lines 11-32 i.e. The method 200 may include, at action 218, requesting to view the PII along with an indicator of the organization website to which the PII was submitted and, at action 220, receiving the request. For example, the user 103 may request, at action 218, to view all of the PII that the user 103 has submitted to the organization websites 118a-118n, along with an indicator (e.g., a website name or an organization name) of the organization website to which the PII was submitted, and the PII application 112 and/or the PII application 115 may receive, at action 220, the request. In some embodiments, the request at action 218 may be accomplished in the browser 110 or in another application on the client 104. The method 200 may include, at action 222, retrieving each of the encrypted PII along with the identifier of the organization website to which the PII was submitted. For example, the PII application 112 and/or the PII application 115 may retrieve, at action 222, each of the encrypted PII, along with the identifier (e.g., a domain or a URL) of the organization website to which the PII was submitted, from the PII storage 114 and/or from the PII storage 116 and/or from a blockchain.);
generating a dynamically updatable PII profile graphical user interface (GUI) configured to displays a listing of one or more data brokers including the first data broker (see Angara column 8 lines 37-49 i.e. the method 200 may include, at action 226, displaying each of the PII along with the indicator of the organization website to which the PII was submitted. For example, the PII application 112 and/or the PII application 115 may display, at action 226, displaying each of the PII along with the indicator (e.g., a website name such as “Amazon Store” or “Gmail Inbox” or an organization name such as “Amazon” or “Gmail”) of the organization website to which the PII was submitted. This display may be accomplished on the client 104 or on some other device, such as by displaying a list of all of the PII and the corresponding organization websites in a webpage);
receive by the GUI first user input corresponding to selection of the first data broker; in response to receiving the first input displaying on the GUI the PII profile stored by the first data broker (see Angara column 8 lines 37-49 i.e. the method 200 may include, at action 226, displaying each of the PII along with the indicator of the organization website to which the PII was submitted. For example, the PII application 112 and/or the PII application 115 may display, at action 226, displaying each of the PII along with the indicator (e.g., a website name such as “Amazon Store” or “Gmail Inbox” or an organization name such as “Amazon” or “Gmail”) of the organization website to which the PII was submitted. This display may be accomplished on the client 104 or on some other device, such as by displaying a list of all of the PII and the corresponding organization websites in a webpage);
receive by the GUI second user input corresponding to a verification decision of the PII profile to remove the PII profile from the first data broker (see Angara column 8 lines 50-59 i.e. The method 200 may include, at action 228, requesting for a selected one of the PII to be deleted by the organization website to which the PII was submitted and, at action 230 receiving the request. For example, the user 103 may request, at action 228, for a selected one of the PII to be deleted (e.g., selected by the user 103 by clicking on one of the PII from the displayed list of PII) by the organization website 118a to which the PII was submitted, and the PII application 112 and/or the PII application 115 may, at action 230, receive the request and column 9 lines 28-45 i.e The method 200 may include, at action 240, determining whether the original hash matches any of the stored verification hashes. If so (yes at action 240), the method 200 may include, at action 242, deleting the PII corresponding to the matching verification hash. If not (not at action 240), the method 200 may include, at action 244, sending a rejection message. For example, the organization website 118a may determine, at action 240, whether the original hash (received at action 238) matches any of the verification hashes that were previously stored in the organization PII storage 122a (stored at action 210). In some embodiments, the determining at action 240 may further include determining that the specified hash is found in a blockchain storing hashes corresponding to PII for which deletion is authorized. In these embodiments, the deleting at action 242 and column 9 lines 39-45 i.e. the determining at action 240 may further include determining that the specified hash is found in a blockchain storing hashes corresponding to PII for which deletion is authorized).
responsive to receipt of the second user input, providing an instruction to the first data broker on an action (see Angara column 4 lines 27-37 i.e. Further in some embodiments, a user may easily request that a selected PII (e.g., that the user selects from the list of all shared PII with a single click) be deleted by the organization website to which the selected PII was submitted. When such a request is received, the browser or browser plugin (or other application) may automatically request deletion of the PII by the organization website on behalf of the user and column 9 lines 16-18 i.e. at action 236, requesting that the organization website delete the PII associated with the original hash and, at action 238, receiving the request).
Angara does not explicitly teach wherein the second user input includes a swipe motion in a first direction indicating that the first PII is to be removed from the first data broker; when the second input indicates that the first PII does not correspond to the user, causing removal of PII from the PII profile of the user stored by the first data broker or monitoring for compliance by the first data broker of the action set forth in the instruction.
Suga teaches monitoring for compliance by the first data broker of the action set forth in the instruction (see Suga paragraph 0256-0257 i.e. assume that in step S508 illustrated in FIG. 23, the removal request receipt unit 318 of the server 300B removes the personal information of a user from the personal information storage area 330 according to a removal request from the removal unit 115 (FIG. 18) of the management device 100. Next, in step S508A, the security module 317 (FIG. 20) signs a proof of the removal and generates signature information (creates a signature). Next, in step S509A, the removal request receipt unit 318 notifies the management device 100 of a removal completion notification indicating that the personal information of the user was removed in step S508 above and the signature information created by the security module 317).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Angara in view of Suga to have the organization website transmit a signed a proof of the removal to the management device as a way to monitor for compliance of the removal request (see Suge paragraph 0256).
Angara and Suga and do not explicitly teach wherein the second user input includes a swipe motion in a first direction indicating that the first PII is to be removed from the first data broker; when the second input indicates that the first PII does not correspond to the user, causing removal of PII from the PII profile of the user stored by the first data broker
Terrill teaches wherein the second user input includes a swipe motion in a first direction indicating that the data (i.e. first PII) is to be removed from the first data broker (see Terrill column 12 lines 23-30 i.e. Additionally, in some embodiments a user may delete an image by performing a swipe gesture in the direction indicated by arrow 722, (e.g., by “pushing” the image up until it disappears from the screen 710). Similarly, in some embodiments a user may save an image as a separate image by performing a swipe gesture in the direction indicated by arrow 724 (e.g., by “pulling” the image down until it disappears from the screen 710)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Angara and Suga in view of Terrill to have used swipe gestures input actions as they are well known in the art (see Terrill column 12 lines 23-30). Therefore one would have been motivated to have deleted data by swiping them in one direction and saving data swiping in another direction.
Angara, Suga and Terrill does not disclose when the second input indicates that the first PII does not correspond to the user, causing removal of PII from the PII profile of the user stored by the first data broker.
Bekker teaches when the second input indicates that the first PII does not correspond to the user, causing removal of PII from the PII profile of the user stored by the first data broker (see Bekker paragraph 0876-0881 i.e. Step C: Customer Opens Alert to Review. Here is what is presented to the customer: the alert details, what PII was used to find the alert, Alert content, Chance to approve the record "I agree with this information" or "YES THIS IS MINE" in this example, Chance to disapprove the record "I don't understand or know this information" or "NO THIS IS NOT MINE" in this example and paragraph 0883-0884 i.e. Step D: Approval Popup, If they click "Approve Record", they are triggered with a popup to confirm the validity of the record. FIG. 9.D (see also Step D) illustrates an example of a popup window where a potential threat is marked as approved and where the system is prompting the user for validation, which can include a confirmation button, which is labeled "APPROVE RECORDS" in this example).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Angara, Suga and Terrill in view of Bekker to have also been able to remove PII data and profile if the PII data in the user’s profile does not correspond to the user as a way to protect the users PII (see Bekker paragraph 0876-0881). Therefore one would have been motivated to have removed PPI not correspond to the user.
With respect to claim 16 Angara, Suga, Terrill and Bekker teaches the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 15, wherein the first PII includes one of a user account, a social security number, an address, a data of birth, or a phone number (see Angara column 1 lines 7-29 i.e. PII generally relates to any information that can be used to distinguish or trace an individual's identity (such as name, social security number, date and place of birth, mother's maiden name, or biometric records) and any other information that is linked or linkable to an individual (such as medical, educational, financial, and employment information)).
With respect to claim 19 Angara, Suga, Terrill and Bekker teaches the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 15, wherein the dynamically updatable PII profile GUI illustrates a first data broker and the PII profile, and wherein the dynamically updatable PII profile GUI includes a first user interface (UI) element configured to receive additional the user input corresponding to confirming that the PII profile corresponds to the user (see Bekker paragraph 0876-0881 i.e. Step C: Customer Opens Alert to Review. Here is what is presented to the customer: the alert details, what PII was used to find the alert, Alert content, Chance to approve the record "I agree with this information" or "YES THIS IS MINE" in this example, Chance to disapprove the record "I don't understand or know this information" or "NO THIS IS NOT MINE" in this example and paragraph 0883-0884 i.e. Step D: Approval Popup, If they click "Approve Record", they are triggered with a popup to confirm the validity of the record. FIG. 9.D (see also Step D) illustrates an example of a popup window where a potential threat is marked as approved and where the system is prompting the user for validation, which can include a confirmation button, which is labeled "APPROVE RECORDS" in this example).
With respect to claim 20 Angara, Suga, Terrill and Bekker teaches the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 19, wherein the dynamically updatable PII profile GUI further includes a second UI element configured to receive second additional user input corresponding to instructions to display one or more of (i) from where a first data broker obtained information of the PII profile, or (ii) whether the user provided consent to the first data broker for the PII profile (see Bekker paragraph 0875 i.e. The "My Monitoring" field can display a date corresponding with the last scan, and three sub-sections corresponding with Internet monitoring, Credit monitoring and Public Records monitoring functions. The sub-sections can display a number of active threats. A warning icon can be used to flag a new identity alert, in this example, a logo having a triangle with an exclamation point inside the triangle is used. A confirmation icon can be used when no thread exists, in this example, a check mark logo is used. The "My Restoration" field can display a phone number associated with a customer service department, and a button allowing the user to access threat reporting functionality, in this case, a "REPORT A THREAT" button is provided).
With respect to claim 22 Angara, Suga, Terrill and Bekker teaches the method of claim 1. but does not disclose wherein removal of the first PII from the first data broker includes deletion of the first PII by the first data broker (see Angara column 8 lines 50-59 i.e. The method 200 may include, at action 228, requesting for a selected one of the PII to be deleted by the organization website to which the PII was submitted and, at action 230 receiving the request. For example, the user 103 may request, at action 228, for a selected one of the PII to be deleted (e.g., selected by the user 103 by clicking on one of the PII from the displayed list of PII) by the organization website 118a to which the PII was submitted, and the PII application 112 and/or the PII application 115 may, at action 230, receive the request and column 9 lines 28-45 i.e The method 200 may include, at action 240, determining whether the original hash matches any of the stored verification hashes. If so (yes at action 240), the method 200 may include, at action 242, deleting the PII corresponding to the matching verification hash. If not (not at action 240), the method 200 may include, at action 244, sending a rejection message. For example, the organization website 118a may determine, at action 240, whether the original hash (received at action 238) matches any of the verification hashes that were previously stored in the organization PII storage 122a (stored at action 210). In some embodiments, the determining at action 240 may further include determining that the specified hash is found in a blockchain storing hashes corresponding to PII for which deletion is authorized. In these embodiments, the deleting at action 242 and column 9 lines 39-45 i.e. the determining at action 240 may further include determining that the specified hash is found in a blockchain storing hashes corresponding to PII for which deletion is authorized).
Claims 3-4, 10-11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Angara et al (US 11,496,446) in view of Suga et al (US 2023/0105706) in view of Terrill et al (US 9,325,876) in view of Bekker (US 2013/0179988) in view of Coggeshall et al (US 2013/0333048).
With respect to claim 3 Angara, Suga, Terrill and Bekker teaches the method of claim 1, but does not disclose further comprising following retrieval of the PII profile, analyzing the PI profile resulting in a determination of an accuracy score for the PII profile indicating whether information of the PII profile is related to the user.
Coggeshall teaches further comprising following retrieval of the PII profile, analyzing the PI profile resulting in a determination of an accuracy score for the PII profile indicating whether information of the PII profile is related to the user (see Coggeshall paragraph 0027 i.e. The present invention detects deliberate manipulation of a particular person's identity information, such as their Social Security number, date of birth, and some aspect of their name and address, and calculates an identity manipulation score also see paragraphs 0008 and 0031).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Angara, Terrill and Bekker in view of Coggeshall to have use Coggeshall ID Analytics of generating a ID Score, which is a numeric value ranging from 001-999 and reflects the risk-level associated with a consumer's identity, i.e., the likelihood the consumer has been victimized by an identity thief--the greater the score, the greater the risk. Were the ID Score relies on data within the ID Network and provides an integrated view of each individual's identity characteristics and their connectedness to others' identity characteristics of Social Security number (SSN), name, address, home phone number, date of birth, cell phone number, e-mail address, and Internet Protocol (IP) address to helps organizations effectively pinpoint first-party fraud, synthetic identities, and identity theft in real time (see Coggeshall paragraph 0008).
With respect to claim 4 Angara, Suga, Terrill, Bekker and Coggeshall teaches the method of claim 3, wherein analyzing the PI profile is based on one or more rules (see Coggeshall paragraph 0027 i.e. The present invention detects deliberate manipulation of a particular person's identity information, such as their Social Security number, date of birth, and some aspect of their name and address, and calculates an identity manipulation score also see paragraphs 0008 and 0031).
With respect to claim 10 Angara, Suga, Terrill and Bekker teaches the computing device of claim 8, wherein the operations further comprising following retrieval of the PII profile, analyzing the PI profile resulting in a determination of an accuracy score for the PII profile indicating whether information of the PII profile is related to the user.
Coggeshall teaches further comprising following retrieval of the PII profile, analyzing the PI profile resulting in a determination of an accuracy score for the PII profile indicating whether information of the PII profile is related to the user (see Coggeshall paragraph 0027 i.e. The present invention detects deliberate manipulation of a particular person's identity information, such as their Social Security number, date of birth, and some aspect of their name and address, and calculates an identity manipulation score also see paragraphs 0008 and 0031).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Angara, Terrill and Bekker in view of Coggeshall to have use Coggeshall ID Analytics of generating a ID Score, which is a numeric value ranging from 001-999 and reflects the risk-level associated with a consumer's identity, i.e., the likelihood the consumer has been victimized by an identity thief--the greater the score, the greater the risk. Were the ID Score relies on data within the ID Network and provides an integrated view of each individual's identity characteristics and their connectedness to others' identity characteristics of Social Security number (SSN), name, address, home phone number, date of birth, cell phone number, e-mail address, and Internet Protocol (IP) address to helps organizations effectively pinpoint first-party fraud, synthetic identities, and identity theft in real time (see Coggeshall paragraph 0008).
With respect to claim 11 Angara, Suga, Terrill, Bekker and Coggeshall teaches the computing device of claim 10, wherein analyzing the PI profile is based on one or more rules (see Coggeshall paragraph 0027 i.e. The present invention detects deliberate manipulation of a particular person's identity information, such as their Social Security number, date of birth, and some aspect of their name and address, and calculates an identity manipulation score also see paragraphs 0008 and 0031).
With respect to claim 17 Angara, Suga,Terrill and Bekker teaches the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 15, wherein further comprising following retrieval of the PII profile, analyzing the PI profile resulting in a determination of an accuracy score for the PII profile indicating whether information of the PII profile is related to the user.
Coggeshall teaches further comprising following retrieval of the PII profile, analyzing the PI profile resulting in a determination of an accuracy score for the PII profile indicating whether information of the PII profile is related to the user (see Coggeshall paragraph 0027 i.e. The present invention detects deliberate manipulation of a particular person's identity information, such as their Social Security number, date of birth, and some aspect of their name and address, and calculates an identity manipulation score also see paragraphs 0008 and 0031).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Angara, Terrill and Bekker in view of Coggeshall to have use Coggeshall ID Analytics of generating a ID Score, which is a numeric value ranging from 001-999 and reflects the risk-level associated with a consumer's identity, i.e., the likelihood the consumer has been victimized by an identity thief--the greater the score, the greater the risk. Were the ID Score relies on data within the ID Network and provides an integrated view of each individual's identity characteristics and their connectedness to others' identity characteristics of Social Security number (SSN), name, address, home phone number, date of birth, cell phone number, e-mail address, and Internet Protocol (IP) address to helps organizations effectively pinpoint first-party fraud, synthetic identities, and identity theft in real time (see Coggeshall paragraph 0008).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With respect to claim 21 the prior art does not teach the method of claim 1, wherein the swipe motion in the second direction further indicates that the first data broker hosting the first PII is not to sell the first PII.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DEVIN E ALMEIDA whose telephone number is (571)270-1018. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from 7:30 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. The examiner can also be reached on alternate Fridays from 7:30 A.M. to 4:00 P.M.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Rupal Dharia, can be reached on 571-272-3880. 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).
/DEVIN E ALMEIDA/ Examiner, Art Unit 2492
Prosecution Insights