Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the communication filed on 08/28/2024.
Claims 1-20 are under examination.
The Information Disclosure Statements filed on 02/08/2026 has been entered and considered.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 18 are 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.
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this 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/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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,799,869 B1 and claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,113,799 B1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, as follows: A system configured to manage user profiles based on profile hierarchies, the system comprising: non-transitory electronic storage that stores: attribute values for a hierarchy attribute characterizing profile hierarchies for sets of user profiles and relationships between individual user profiles; a first user profile including a first attribute value and a second attribute value; a second user profile; a third user profile; wherein the first attribute value specifies the first user profile is superior to the second user profile in accordance with a first profile hierarchy defining a first relationship between the first user profile and the second user profile; and wherein the second attribute value specifies the first user profile is superior to the third user profile in accordance with the first profile hierarchy defining a second relationship between the first user profile and the third user profile; and one or more physical processors configured by machine-readable instructions to: obtain a first request submitted by a first compliance organization, the first request identifying the first user profile and including a first request criterion; in response to the first request identifying the first user profile, access the second user profile to identify content of the second user profile that satisfies the first request criterion by virtue of the first profile hierarchy and the first relationship; effectuate communication of user interface information to a first computing platform associated with the first compliance organization to cause the first computing platform to present a first instance of a user interface displaying the content of the second user profile that satisfies the first request criterion of the first request; obtain a second request submitted by the first compliance organization, the second request identifying the first user profile and including a second request criterion; in response to the second request identifying the first user profile, access the third user profile to identify content of the third user profile that satisfies the second request criterion by virtue of the first profile hierarchy and the second relationship; and effectuate communication of further user interface information to the first computing platform associated with the first compliance organization to cause the first computing platform to present a second instance of the user interface displaying the content of the third user profile that satisfies the second request criterion of the second request.
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 of this title, 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 1-7, 9-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verma et al. (US 2013/0024910 A1) and Upadhyaya (2017/0017383 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Verma et al. discloses A system configured to manage user profiles based on profile hierarchies, the system comprising: non-transitory electronic storage that stores: attribute values for a hierarchy attribute; a first user profile including a first attribute value and a second attribute value; a second user profile; a third user profile [par. 0049, “A "user profile" or "user's profile" is generally configured to store and maintain data about the user of the database system. The data can include general information, such as title, phone number, a photo, a biographical summary, and a status”, par. 0369, “Profile information may further include other data objects, such as an image or profile picture. The profile information may be stored in one or more database tables of a database system operated and maintained by the server or servers”]; wherein the first attribute value specifies the first user profile is superior to the second user profile in accordance with a first profile hierarchy defining a first relationship between the first user profile and the second user profile [par. 0325, “users are assigned a profile type”, par. 0326, “Such rules can determine the viewable records as a combination of those viewable by profile type, viewable due to a profile hierarchy (e.g., a boss can view records of profile types lower in the hierarchy)” (user role with boss can view records of other user with employee role)]; and wherein the second attribute value specifies the first user profile is superior to the third user profile in accordance with the first profile hierarchy defining a second relationship between the first user profile and the third user profile [par. 0325, “users are assigned a profile type”, par. 0326, “Such rules can determine the viewable records as a combination of those viewable by profile type, viewable due to a profile hierarchy (e.g., a boss can view records of profile types lower in the hierarchy)” (user role with boss can view records of other user with employee role), par. 0065, “In systems with a hierarchical role model, users at one permission level may have access to applications, data, and database information accessible by a lower permission level user, but may not have access to certain applications, database information, and data accessible by a user at a higher permission level. Thus, different users will have different capabilities with regard to accessing and modifying application and database information, depending on a user's security or permission level, also called authorization”]; and one or more physical processors configured by machine-readable instructions to: obtain a first request submitted by a first compliance organization, the first request identifying the first user profile and including a first request criterion [par. 0361, “a request to access an on-demand service via the network communications application may be received. In various implementations, the request may be issued from the network communications application to a server or servers in the on-demand database service environment. In some implementations, the request may be a message issued in response to the user indicating that profile information stored in a user profile provided by the server or servers should be integrated with the user account provided by the email service provider. This may occur, for example, when the user indicates that profile information associated with entities, such as biographical information associated with tracked entities, should be included in the user account”]; in response to the first request identifying the first user profile, access the second user profile to identify content of the second user profile that satisfies the first request criterion by virtue of the first profile hierarchy and the first relationship; effectuate communication of user interface information to a first computing platform associated with the first compliance organization to cause the first computing platform to present a first instance of a user interface displaying the content of the second user profile that satisfies the first request criterion of the first request [par. 0347, “Besides searching for feed items that match a criteria, one also could search for a particular feed item… a user can query to obtain a particular profile or record feed, and then navigate to the feed item (e.g., as child of the parent feed). In another implementation, the relationship from a feed to its parent entity (e.g., a record or user profile) is uni-directional. That is a user can navigate from the feed to the parent but not vice versa”, par. 0370, “one or more database tables may be queried in order to identify and retrieve profile information associated with the filtered one or more entities. For example, the one or more tracked entities may be filtered so that only contacts followed by the user are identified”, par. 0376, “the profile information may be provided to the network communications application. Thus, according to various implementations, the profile information may be sent to the network communications application for display to the user. In various implementations, the network communications application may display the profile information in a presentation that is native to the network communications application”]; obtain a second request submitted by the first compliance organization, the second request identifying the first user profile and including a second request criterion [par. 0074, 0077, application server is configuration to handle multiple requests, par. 0361, “a request to access an on-demand service via the network communications application may be received. In various implementations, the request may be issued from the network communications application to a server or servers in the on-demand database service environment. In some implementations, the request may be a message issued in response to the user indicating that profile information stored in a user profile provided by the server or servers should be integrated with the user account provided by the email service provider. This may occur, for example, when the user indicates that profile information associated with entities, such as biographical information associated with tracked entities, should be included in the user account”]; in response to the second request identifying the first user profile, access the third user profile to identify content of the third user profile that satisfies the second request criterion by virtue of the first profile hierarchy and the second relationship; and effectuate communication of further user interface information to the first computing platform associated with the first compliance organization to cause the first computing platform to present a second instance of the user interface displaying the content of the third user profile that satisfies the second request criterion of the second request [par. 0347, “Besides searching for feed items that match a criteria, one also could search for a particular feed item… a user can query to obtain a particular profile or record feed, and then navigate to the feed item (e.g., as child of the parent feed). In another implementation, the relationship from a feed to its parent entity (e.g., a record or user profile) is uni-directional. That is a user can navigate from the feed to the parent but not vice versa”, par. 0370, “one or more database tables may be queried in order to identify and retrieve profile information associated with the filtered one or more entities. For example, the one or more tracked entities may be filtered so that only contacts followed by the user are identified”, par. 0376, “the profile information may be provided to the network communications application. Thus, according to various implementations, the profile information may be sent to the network communications application for display to the user. In various implementations, the network communications application may display the profile information in a presentation that is native to the network communications application”].
Verma et al. does not explicitly disclose the hierarchy attribute characterizing profile hierarchies for sets of user profiles and relationships between individual user profiles.
However Upadhyaya teaches the hierarchy attribute characterizing profile hierarchies for sets of user profiles and relationships between individual user profiles [par. 0013, Data of user profiles corresponding to a same hierarchical level are configured to a same value. Meanwhile, data of user profiles corresponding to different hierarchical levels are configured to different values”].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Upadhyaya into the teaching of Verma et al. with the motivation such that a user profile include a hierarchical level corresponding to an employee and the hierarchical level corresponding to the employee may be identified by the number of the hierarchical level as taught by Upadhyaya [Upadhyaya: par. 0034].
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Verma et al. further discloses the first request criterion identifies the first relationship [par. 0326, access to specific records can be checked, e.g., after it has been determined that the user can access the record type. Rules can be used to determine the records viewable by a user. Such rules can determine the viewable records as a combination of those viewable by profile type, viewable due to a profile hierarchy (e.g., a boss can view records of profile types lower in the hierarchy)].
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated.
Verma et al. further discloses the second request criterion identifies the second relationship [par. 0074, 0077, application server is configuration to handle multiple requests , par. 0326, access to specific records can be checked, e.g., after it has been determined that the user can access the record type. Rules can be used to determine the records viewable by a user. Such rules can determine the viewable records as a combination of those viewable by profile type, viewable due to a profile hierarchy (e.g., a boss can view records of profile types lower in the hierarchy)].
Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Verma et al. further discloses the second user profile includes a third attribute value specifying the second user profile is superior to a fourth user profile in accordance with a second profile hierarchy defining a third relationship between the second user profile and the fourth user profile [par. 0065, “In systems with a hierarchical role model, users at one permission level may have access to applications, data, and database information accessible by a lower permission level user, but may not have access to certain applications, database information, and data accessible by a user at a higher permission level. Thus, different users will have different capabilities with regard to accessing and modifying application and database information, depending on a user's security or permission level, also called authorization”].
Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Verma et al. further discloses the second user profile includes a third attribute value specifying the second user profile is superior to a fourth user profile in accordance with a second profile hierarchy defining a third relationship between the second user profile and the fourth user profile [par. 0065, “In systems with a hierarchical role model, users at one permission level may have access to applications, data, and database information accessible by a lower permission level user, but may not have access to certain applications, database information, and data accessible by a user at a higher permission level. Thus, different users will have different capabilities with regard to accessing and modifying application and database information, depending on a user's security or permission level, also called authorization”].
Regarding claim 5, the rejection of claim 4 is incorporated.
Verma et al. further discloses the second user profile includes a third attribute value specifying the second user profile is superior to a fourth user profile in accordance with a second profile hierarchy defining a third relationship between the second user profile and the fourth user profile [par. 0347, “Besides searching for feed items that match a criteria, one also could search for a particular feed item… a user can query to obtain a particular profile or record feed, and then navigate to the feed item (e.g., as child of the parent feed). In another implementation, the relationship from a feed to its parent entity (e.g., a record or user profile) is uni-directional. That is a user can navigate from the feed to the parent but not vice versa”, par. 0370, “one or more database tables may be queried in order to identify and retrieve profile information associated with the filtered one or more entities. For example, the one or more tracked entities may be filtered so that only contacts followed by the user are identified”, par. 0376, “the profile information may be provided to the network communications application. Thus, according to various implementations, the profile information may be sent to the network communications application for display to the user. In various implementations, the network communications application may display the profile information in a presentation that is native to the network communications application”].
Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Verma et al. further discloses the second user profile includes a third attribute value specifying the second user profile is subordinate to a fourth user profile in accordance with a second profile hierarchy defining a third relationship between the second user profile and the fourth user profile [par. 0065, “In systems with a hierarchical role model, users at one permission level may have access to applications, data, and database information accessible by a lower permission level user, but may not have access to certain applications, database information, and data accessible by a user at a higher permission level. Thus, different users will have different capabilities with regard to accessing and modifying application and database information, depending on a user's security or permission level, also called authorization”].
Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 6 is incorporated.
Verma et al. further discloses obtain a third request submitted by a second compliance organization, the third request identifying the fourth user profile and including a third request criterion [par. 0074, 0077, application server is configuration to handle multiple requests, par. 0361, “a request to access an on-demand service via the network communications application may be received. In various implementations, the request may be issued from the network communications application to a server or servers in the on-demand database service environment. In some implementations, the request may be a message issued in response to the user indicating that profile information stored in a user profile provided by the server or servers should be integrated with the user account provided by the email service provider. This may occur, for example, when the user indicates that profile information associated with entities, such as biographical information associated with tracked entities, should be included in the user account”]; and in response to the third request identifying the fourth user profile, access the second user profile to identify content of the second user profile that satisfies the third request criterion by virtue of the second profile hierarchy and the third relationship [par. 0347, “Besides searching for feed items that match a criteria, one also could search for a particular feed item… a user can query to obtain a particular profile or record feed, and then navigate to the feed item (e.g., as child of the parent feed). In another implementation, the relationship from a feed to its parent entity (e.g., a record or user profile) is uni-directional. That is a user can navigate from the feed to the parent but not vice versa”, par. 0370, “one or more database tables may be queried in order to identify and retrieve profile information associated with the filtered one or more entities. For example, the one or more tracked entities may be filtered so that only contacts followed by the user are identified”].
Regarding claim 9, the rejection of claim 7 is incorporated.
Verma et al. further discloses the third request criterion identifies the third relationship [par. 0074, 0077, application server is configuration to handle multiple requests , par. 0326, access to specific records can be checked, e.g., after it has been determined that the user can access the record type. Rules can be used to determine the records viewable by a user. Such rules can determine the viewable records as a combination of those viewable by profile type, viewable due to a profile hierarchy (e.g., a boss can view records of profile types lower in the hierarchy)].
Regarding claim 10, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Verma et al. further discloses the first user profile includes a first authenticated content item, the second user profile includes a second authenticated content item, and wherein the content of the second user profile that satisfies the first request criterion of the first request is the second authenticated content item [par. 0326, access to specific records can be checked, e.g., after it has been determined that the user can access the record type. Rules can be used to determine the records viewable by a user. Such rules can determine the viewable records as a combination of those viewable by profile type, viewable due to a profile hierarchy (e.g., a boss can view records of profile types lower in the hierarchy)].
Regarding claim 11, it recites limitations like claim 1. The reason for the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 12, it recites limitations like claim 2. The reason for the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 13, it recites limitations like claim 3. The reason for the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 14, it recites limitations like claim 4. The reason for the rejection of claim 4 is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 15, it recites limitations like claim 5. The reason for the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 16, it recites limitations like claim 6. The reason for the rejection of claim 6 is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 17, it recites limitations like claim 7. The reason for the rejection of claim 7 is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 19, it recites limitations like claim 9. The reason for the rejection of claim 9 is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 20, it recites limitations like claim 10. The reason for the rejection of claim 10 is incorporated herein.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
US 20230145179 A1 USER CONNECTION DEGREE MEASUREMENT
US 20210195260 A1 Dynamic Content Insertion On A User-by-User Basis
US 20160026717 A1 DIGITAL ASSET MANAGEMENT FOR ENTERPRISES
US 6542515 B1 Profile Service
US 6757720 B1 Profile Service Architecture
US 20110113072 A1 CUSTOMIZING ENTERPRISE LEVEL BUSINESS INFORMATION NETWORKING
US 20130080911 A1 PERSONALIZING WEB APPLICATIONS ACCORDING TO SOCIAL NETWORK USER PROFILES
US 20160277528 A1 METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR GENERATING EXCHANGEABLE USER PROFILES
US 20190342175 A1 APPLICATION OF PROFILE SETTING GROUPS TO LOGICAL NETWORK ENTITIES
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON CHIANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3393. The examiner can normally be reached on 9 AM to 6 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lynn Feild can be reached on (571) 272-2092. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JASON CHIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2431