DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 9, and 17 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/20/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-12, and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spaulding et al., Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0155655 (hereinafter Spaulding) in view of Jones et al., Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0149982 (hereinafter Jones) and Bardot, Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0215948 (hereinafter Bardot).
Regarding claim 1, Spaulding teaches:
A database system comprising: a rules database comprising a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a plurality of data tables (Spaulding Paragraph [0180], a non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprises instructions which, when executed by one or more hardware processors, Paragraph [0122], the cloud application 114 stores information indicating the jurisdiction of the originating client device in a database, table, and/or other memory structure separate from the set of data), each data table corresponding to a jurisdiction and an action type (Spaulding Paragraph [0122], the cloud application 114 stores information indicating the jurisdiction of the originating client device in a database, table, and/or other memory structure separate from the set of data), each data table defining a plurality of data types and corresponding data formats to satisfy requirements of the action type (Spaulding Paragraph [0049], As another example, a token format may require a particular spacing between the characters of all tokens. All tokens may include, for example, one space after the first five characters of the token and two spaces after the first ten characters of the token);
an interaction engine comprising at least a hardware processor configured to perform one or more computer actions by (Spaulding Paragraph [0180], a non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprises instructions which, when executed by one or more hardware processors):
for each network action of the one or more network actions, accessing the rule database to retrieve a target data table associated with the target jurisdiction and the target action type (Spaulding Paragraph [0050], Tokens generated by different DRPs may comply with different token formats 234. Additionally or alternatively, tokens generated for restricted data associated with different authorized jurisdictions may comply with different token formats 234. Additionally or alternatively, tokens associated with different data types may comply with different token formats 234);
generating computer code required to perform the network action by encoding data associated with entities associated with the target data table based on the plurality of data types and corresponding data formats included within the target data table (Spaulding Paragraph [0024], The masking engine analyzes the format of the data within the response. Based on the format of the data, the masking engine identifies the token within the response, Paragraph [0193], In the Internet example, a server 630 might transmit a requested code for an application program through Internet 628, ISP 626, local network 622 and communication interface 618, Paragraph [0122], the cloud application 114 stores information indicating the jurisdiction of the originating client device in a database, table, and/or other memory structure separate from the set of data); and
an update engine configured to modify the rules database by (Spaulding Paragraph [0129], whether the retrieving client device is associated with a permission for receiving the set of data is determined based on a set of rules specifying criteria for determining whether the permission is present):
Spaulding does not expressly disclose:
receiving, via an interface, an identified jurisdiction, an identified action type, identified data types, and corresponding identified data formats;
in response to the rules database including a data table corresponding to the identified jurisdiction and identified action type, modifying the data table to include the identified data types and corresponding identified data formats; and
in response to the rules database not including the data table corresponding to the identified jurisdiction and identified action type, generating a new data table corresponding to the identified jurisdiction and identified action type including the identified data types and corresponding identified data formats, and storing the generated new data table in the rules database.
However, Jones teaches:
receiving, via an interface, an identified jurisdiction (Jones Paragraph [0365], the system may be configured to determine that a first interface has a more optimal consent conversion for a first jurisdiction, even if the first interface results in a lower overall level of consent (e.g., than a second interface) in response to determining that the first interface results in a higher provision of a particular type of consent), an identified action type (Jones Paragraph [0365], the system may be configured to determine that a first interface has a more optimal consent conversion for a first jurisdiction, even if the first interface results in a lower overall level of consent (e.g., than a second interface) in response to determining that the first interface results in a higher provision of a particular type of consent), identified data types (Jones Paragraph [0173], the system may modify a data inventory for a particular asset to include a storage encryption data element (which specifies whether the particular asset stores particular data in an encrypted format) in response to receiving such data from a questionnaire), and corresponding identified data formats (Jones Paragraph [0173], the system may modify a data inventory for a particular asset to include a storage encryption data element (which specifies whether the particular asset stores particular data in an encrypted format) in response to receiving such data from a questionnaire);
in response to the rules database including a data table corresponding to the identified jurisdiction and identified action type (Jones Paragraph [0365], the system may be configured to determine that a first interface has a more optimal consent conversion for a first jurisdiction, even if the first interface results in a lower overall level of consent (e.g., than a second interface) in response to determining that the first interface results in a higher provision of a particular type of consent), modifying the data table to include the identified data types and corresponding identified data formats (Jones Paragraph [0008], modifying at least one of the one or more pieces of personal data and storing the modified at least one of the one or more pieces of personal data in the data system); and
in response to the rules database not including the data table corresponding to the identified jurisdiction and identified action type (Jones Paragraph [0333], determination that a data subject for which the system has previously received consent is now located in a new jurisdiction, country, geographic location), generating a new data table corresponding to the identified jurisdiction and identified action type including the identified data types and corresponding identified data formats, and storing the generated new data table in the rules database (Jones Paragraph [0019], in response to receiving the indication that the data system has processed the new piece of personal data, determining, based on the plurality of consent receipts, whether the particular data subject has provided the indication of consent for the processing of the new piece of personal data as part of the particular transaction; (7) in response to determining that the particular data subject has provided the indication of the consent, automatically processing the new piece of personal data).
The claimed invention and Jones are from the analogous art of jurisdiction systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having the teachings of Spaulding in view of Jones to have combined Spaulding in view of Jones. Jones teaches improved systems and methods to manage personal data in a manner that complies with policies (Paragraph 3).
Spaulding in view of Jones does not expressly disclose:
receiving a request to perform one or more network actions, wherein each network action of the one or more network actions is associated with a target jurisdiction and a target action type, and wherein each network action comprises an execution of an operation by a ser
modifying a network transmission to remote server associated with a corresponding target jurisdiction to include the generated computer code and causing the remote server to perform the network action, wherein the modified network transmission is formatted based on a schema associated with the network action and a date associated with a performance of the network action; and
However, Bardot teaches:
receiving a request to perform one or more network actions (Bardot Paragraph [0043], The computer units of NDSs, MAs, and other network components perform various Functions. A “Function” or “function” is a computer-implemented action performed by an NDS or other component of a network), wherein each network action of the one or more network actions is associated with a target jurisdiction and a target action type (Bardot Paragraph [0033], Systems of the invention are often also called network data systems (“NDSs”), Paragraph [0392], an NDS comprises a core architecture that is copied or shared among ≥2 country/jurisdiction-specific NDSs), and wherein each network action comprises an execution of an operation by a server (Bardot Paragraph [0043], The computer units of NDSs, MAs, and other network components perform various Functions. A “Function” or “function” is a computer-implemented action performed by an NDS or other component of a network based on both preprogrammed computer readable and executed instruction(s));
modifying a network transmission to remote server associated with a corresponding target jurisdiction to include the generated computer code and causing the remote server to perform the network action (Bardot Paragraph [0489], control of such a component requires local action in addition to network level action, e.g., local request for a software modification/upgrade when such a modification/upgrade is available, Paragraph [0033], Systems of the invention are often also called network data systems (“NDSs”), Paragraph [0392], an NDS comprises a core architecture that is copied or shared among ≥2 country/jurisdiction-specific NDSs), wherein the modified network transmission is formatted based on a schema associated with the network action and a date associated with a performance of the network action (Bardot Paragraph [0321], A data monitor/dashboard generated by/included in an NDS can comprise a combination of engine(s) that collect specific data in the NDS/network and generate schemas/representation(s), Paragraph [0408], NDS processor (NDS-PROCU #522), via wireless network point #508 at a first time (8:30)); and
The claimed invention and Bardot are from the analogous art of network systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having the teachings of Spaulding in view of Jones and Bardot to have combined Spaulding in view of Jones and Bardot. Bardot teaches technical effects that include transforming data in a manner that cannot be reasonably carried out by a person and improving efficiency of the system (Paragraph 49).
Regarding claim 2, Spaulding in view of Jones and Bardot further teaches:
The database system of claim 1, further comprising an entity database storing data associated with a target entity, wherein the computer code is further generated based on data stored in the entity database (Spaulding Paragraph [0193], In the Internet example, a server 630 might transmit a requested code for an application program through Internet 628, ISP 626, local network 622 and communication interface 618, Paragraph [0122], the cloud application 114 stores information indicating the jurisdiction of the originating client device in a database, table, and/or other memory structure separate from the set of data).
Regarding claim 3, Spaulding in view of Jones and Bardot further teaches:
The database system of claim 2, wherein the target entity is associated with the target jurisdiction, and the request to perform a network action is received from a client device associated with the entity (Spaulding Paragraph [0025], A client device transmits a request for restricted data to a cloud application. The masking engine, implemented by the cloud application, identifies a set of data to be included in a response to the request).
Regarding claim 4, Spaulding in view of Jones and Bardot further teaches:
The database system of claim 1, wherein the new data table corresponding to the identified jurisdiction and identified action type are stored as a new version of data table corresponding to the identified jurisdiction (Jones Paragraph [0392], The system may be configured to determine that the data subject is in a new location based at least in part on, for example, a geolocation (e.g., GPS location) of a mobile computing device associated with the data subject, an IP address of one or more computing devices associated with the data subject, etc.). As may be understood in light of this disclosure, one or more different countries, jurisdictions, etc. may impose different rules, regulations, etc. related to the collection, storage, and processing of personal data. As such, in response to a user moving to a new location (e.g., or in response to a user temporarily being present in a new location), the system may be configured to trigger a recapture of consent based on one or more differences between one or more rules or regulations in the new location and the original location from which the data subject provided consent).
Regarding claim 7, Spaulding in view of Jones and Bardot further teaches:
The database system of claim 1, wherein the interaction engine is further configured to visualize the generated computer code, the visualization presenting an interpretation of each of a plurality of segments of the generated computer code (Jones Paragraph [0137], the system may be further configured to generate a visual representation of the data model, Paragraph [0308], an exemplary dashboard of consent receipt management implementation code which the system may automatically generate for the implementation of a consent receipt management system).
Regarding claim 8, Spaulding in view of Jones and Bardot further teaches:
The database system of claim 1, wherein the interaction engine is further configured to visualize the network action, the visualization presenting a frequency associated with the network action and a payment associated with the network action (Jones Paragraph [0137], the system may be further configured to generate a visual representation of the data model, Paragraph [0425], store time and frequency data for consents received via a particular capture pint (e.g., consent collection point), Paragraph [0267], The webform may include, for example, one or more fields that include the user's e-mail address, billing address, shipping address, and payment information for the purposes of collected payment data to complete a checkout process on an e-commerce website).
Claims 9-12 and 15-19 are rejected in the same manner as claims 1-4, 7, and 8 but are merely directed to a different embodiment of the same invention (system, method, computer-readable storage medium).
Claim(s) 5, 6, 13, 14, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spaulding in view of Jones, Bardot, and Kinoshita et al., Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0292070 (hereinafter Kinoshita).
Regarding claim 5, Spaulding in view of Jones and Bardot teaches parent claim 4.
Spaulding in view of Jones and Bardot further teaches:
wherein the new version of data table is associated with an effective time and the update engine is configured to (Spaulding Paragraph [0046], As another example, a data type of a birthday “10/15/1980” may be date. A token replacing “10/15/1980” may be associated with a date data type):
generate computer code required to perform the network action based on a previous version of data table associated with the identified jurisdiction (Jones Paragraph [0330], in response, automatically expire one or more consents provided by one or more data subjects under a previous version of the privacy policy or consent capture form (Spauling teaches the code)); and
generate computer code required to perform the network action based on the new version of data table associated with the identified jurisdiction (Jones Paragraph [0392], The system may be configured to determine that the data subject is in a new location based at least in part on, for example, a geolocation (e.g., GPS location) of a mobile computing device associated with the data subject, an IP address of one or more computing devices associated with the data subject, etc.). As may be understood in light of this disclosure, one or more different countries, jurisdictions, etc. may impose different rules, regulations, etc. related to the collection, storage, and processing of personal data. As such, in response to a user moving to a new location (e.g., or in response to a user temporarily being present in a new location), the system may be configured to trigger a recapture of consent based on one or more differences between one or more rules or regulations in the new location and the original location from which the data subject provided consent (Spauling teaches the code)).
Spaulding in view of Jones and Bardot does not expressly disclose:
determine a date associated with the network action;
responsive to determining that the date is before the effective time,
responsive to determining that the date is after the effective time,
However, Kinoshita teaches:
determine a date associated with the network action (Kinoshita Paragraph [0099], the dates and times after “2019/01/01” have been set in the update date and time lists 71 to 73 of “data #1”, “data #2”, and “data #3);
responsive to determining that the date is before the effective time (Kinoshita Paragraph [0038], The predetermined period in a case where the first data having a problem is indicated may be, for example, a period between an update date and time of the first data indicated by the designated date and time and a first data update date and time immediately before the update date and time),
responsive to determining that the date is after the effective time (Kinoshita Paragraph [0099], the dates and times after “2019/01/01” have been set in the update date and time lists 71 to 73 of “data #1”, “data #2”, and “data #3),
The claimed invention and Kinoshita are from the analogous art of data management systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having the teachings of Spaulding in view of Jones, Bardot, and Kinoshita to have combined Spaulding in view of Jones, Bardot, and Kinoshita. Kinoshita teaches improved efficiency of problem handing using a data lineage (Paragraph 28).
Regarding claim 6, Spaulding in view of Jones, Bardot, and Kinoshita further teaches:
The database system of claim 5, wherein the database system further comprises a self-healing engine configured to perform a self-healing process, the self-healing process comprising (Kinoshita Paragraph [0027], a large-scale data lineage including old and new data is generated due to an operation change such as addition or deletion of a data source, correction of an existing processing process):
identifying a previously performed network action that was performed based on an out-of-date data table (Kinoshita Paragraph [0027], During long-term operation of a system in which data management is performed using a data lineage, a large-scale data lineage including old and new data); and
causing the interaction engine to perform a corrective network action to correct the previously performed network action, thereby effectively performing a network action retroactively based on an up-to-date data table (Kinoshita Paragraph [0005], every time a plurality of data to be managed in a data lineage indicating histories of the plurality of data are updated, storing an update date and time in association with updated data; in response to an input of a designated date and time or a designated period, based on the update date and time stored in association with each of the plurality of data, determining data updated within a predetermined period including the designated date and time or within the designated period as data of interest).
Claims 13, 14, and 20 are rejected in the same manner as claims 5 and 6 but are merely directed to a different embodiment of the same invention (system, method, computer-readable storage medium).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-12, filed 02/20/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the amendment and the newly cited Bardot reference. Bardot teaches an NDS that is tied to a schema and jurisdiction (Paragraphs 321 and 392).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Oberhofer et al., Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0004537 (hereinafter Oberhofer). Oberhofer teaches network actions and network performance (Paragraphs 34 and 38). Oberhofer further teaches events occurring in a blockchain network using an event schema (Claim 1). This shows that Oberhofer is analogous art as both the claimed invention and Oberhofer are directed to network events and schema.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUSTIN D EYERS whose telephone number is (408)918-7562. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9:00am-7:00pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amy Ng can be reached at (571)270-1698. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DUSTIN D EYERS/ Examiner, Art Unit 2164
/AMY NG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2164
Prosecution Insights