DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed on 5/4/2026.
In instant Amendment, claims 1, 6, 8, 10 and 17 have been amended; claim 15 has been canceled; claims 1 and 17 are independent claims. Claims 1-14 and 16-20 have been examined and are pending. This Action is made Final.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 5/4/2026 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection have been considered but are moot because the view of new grounds of rejection.
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, 2, 5-8, 10, 11, 14, 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lacey et al. (US 2016/0098577 A1) in view of Vestevich (US 2014/0282852 A1) and Park et al. (US 9,658,738 B1).
Regarding Claim 1;
Lacey discloses a computer system for managing personal data within a digital ecosystem (Abstract), the computer system comprising:
one or more processors (FIG. 1A); and
non-transitory computer-readable storage media encoding instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors (FIG. 1A), cause the computer system to:
capture data related to interactions of a user with a first business application ([0022] - In some implementations, the client device 102-1 includes a client application 112 that facilitates the transmission of PII to other devices, such as the hub server 104 and/or requesting devices 108-n... In some implementations, the PII transmitted from the client device 102-1 to other devices includes information resulting from direct interactions with the client device 102-1 (e.g., internet browsing history, user profiles, location information, application usage information, device operational information/logs, etc.) and ;
encrypt the data and store the data in a data repository ([0025] - In some implementations, the client application 112 encrypts the PII prior to sending it to the hub server 104 and/or the requesting devices 108-n and [0094] - an optional encryption module 428 for encrypting user information (including but not limited to documents, verification ratings, data extracted from documents, account information, or any PII) for secure storage, if the user information was not encrypted before it was received by the server 104);
[...]
allow the user to set and modify consent for data sharing and permissions for data usage with a second business application ([0038] - One or more devices associated with the client environment 114 (e.g., the client device 102-1) sends PII permissions back to the hub server 104. In some implementations, the returned permissions include approval or denial of the request (in whole or in part, as described herein), as well as assignments of particular context profiles for which the permissions are granted... The hub server 104 stores the permissions received from individuals in the permissions database 106 and [0045] - Moreover, the hub server 104 allows users to change permissions of multiple third ... and [0110]);
provide a federated gateway to facilitate secure sharing of the data with the second business application, while complying with the permissions for data usage with the second business application ([0044]-[0045] - The profile-based PII gateway 116 allows users to establish permissions related to their PII and the third parties that can access their PII such that they share and receive information in a way that is relevant to their current context.)
Lacey fails to explicitly disclose enable the user to view and manage the data repository, including an ability to access, modify, and organize the data; [and]
curate the data repository by prioritizing certain data that is relevant to the user based on the patterns focusing on usage, context, and history, such that the certain data most frequently used by the user is accessible.
However, in an analogous art, Vestevich teaches [A computer system for managing personal data within a digital ecosystem (FIG. 1), the computer system comprising:
one or more processors (FIG. 1); and
non-transitory computer-readable storage media encoding instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors (FIG. 1), cause the computer system to:]
enable the user to view and manage the data repository, including an ability to access, modify, and organize the data (FIG. 2-3 and [0059] - IG. 2 illustrates a user profile screen 50 of the user interface of the privacy marketplace system 10. The profile screen 50 shows the privacy policies 55 to which a user 20 has privacy policy subscriptions 57 and [0060] - FIG. 3 illustrates a privacy policy editing screen 90 of the privacy marketplace system 10 ... When editing a privacy policy 55, a user 20 may, for example, indicate with a privacy input 115 whether a business 40 may collect a personal information record 120, share the personal information record 120 with third parties, access the personal information record 120 from the privacy marketplace system 10, and/or update the personal information record 120).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinarily skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Vestevich to the system of Lacey to include enable the user to view and manage the data repository, including an ability to access, modify, and organize the data.
One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Vestevich to Lacey to do so as it provides / allows a privacy marketplace system that centralizes the management and control of personal information to the user (Vestevich, [0009]). Further, in an analogous art, Park teaches curate the data repository by prioritizing certain data that is relevant to the user based on the patterns focusing on usage, context, and history, such that the certain data most frequently used by the user is accessible (Abstract and col. 2, lines 32-38 - Thus, the electronic device may determine which items are used more frequently in various contexts. For example, the electronic device may monitor the usage of items at different physical locations (e.g., indoor or outdoor, at home, in an office, at school, at the grocery store, at a shopping mall, at a museum, at a sporting event, and so forth) and col. 2, lines 47-53 - The electronic device may manage the location of the icons in the user interface based on a set of rules, which may be set by default and/or which may be set by a user. For example, icons of more frequently used items may be moved by the device to an area on a home page or first page of the user interface and col. 11, lines 10-30 - As one example, if the access history 610 shows that a user accesses a particular shopping application when the context information shows that the device 100 is located at a shopping mall, then this information can be applied by a management module of the device 100 when determining which icons to move into the device-managed icon area when the current context shows that the device is again located at a shopping mall).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinarily skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Park to the system of Lacey in view of Vestevich to include curate the data repository by prioritizing certain data that is relevant to the user based on the patterns focusing on usage, context, and history, such that the certain data most frequently used by the user is accessible.
One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Park to Lacey in view of Vestevich to do so as it provides / allows managing and recommending applications and content items on an electronic device (col. 1, lines 65-col. 2, lines 1).
Regarding Claim 2;
Lacey in view of Vestevich and Park disclose the computer system of claim 1.
Lacey further discloses wherein the data repository is stored on at least one of: locally on a user device, remotely on a server, or a hybrid of both local and remote storage (FIG. 1 – Hub Server and [0094] - an optional encryption module 428 for encrypting user information (including but not limited to documents, verification ratings, data extracted from documents, account information, or any PII) for secure storage, if the user information was not encrypted before it was received by the server 104).
Regarding Claim 5;
Lacey in view of Vestevich and Park disclose the computer system of claim 1.
Lacey further discloses wherein encryption of the data uses a cryptographic key that is generated and controlled by the user ([0025] - In some implementations, the client application 112 encrypts the PII prior to sending it to the hub server 104 and/or the requesting devices 108-n and [0102] - In some implementations, any or all of the user information in the permissions database 106 is encrypted. Moreover, in some implementations, the service provider does not possess decryption keys for the user information. Accordingly, the service provider and/or the hub server 104 are not able to decrypt, view, read, or modify user information.)
Regarding Claim 6;
Lacey in view of Vestevich and Park disclose the computer system of claim 1.
Lacey further discloses wherein the computer system further enables the user to create and manage one or more custom contexts, including at least one of to: specify social context permissions under which data captured from social media platforms, messaging applications, and other social networking services can be used; specify location context permissions under which location data, including real-time Global Positioning System data and location history, can be used; specify activity context permissions under which data related to physical activity or device usage, can be used; specify shopping context permissions under which data related to shopping habits, including at least one of purchase history, brand preferences, searches for products and services, and wishlists, can be used; and specify financial context permissions under which financial data, including spending habits, and budgeting data, can be used ([0022] - In some implementations, the client device 102-1 includes a client application 112 that facilitates the transmission of PII to other devices, such as the hub server 104 and/or requesting devices 108-n... In some implementations, the PII transmitted from the client device 102-1 to other devices includes information resulting from direct interactions with the client device 102-1 (e.g., internet browsing history, user profiles, location information, application usage information, device operational information/logs, etc.)
Regarding Claim 7;
Lacey in view of Vestevich and Park disclose the computer system of claim 1.
Lacey further teaches wherein the federated gateway is configured to log all data sharing activities, enabling the user to review the data that has been shared with the second business application (FIG. 3 – 150 – Started Policy → Increased Policy → Minor Changes and [0061] - An edit history box 150 may show the editing history of the privacy policy 55).
Similar rationale and motivation is noted for the combination of Vestevich to Lacey in view of Vestevich and Park, as per claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 8;
Lacey in view of Vestevich and Park disclose the computer system of claim 1.
Lacey further discloses wherein the computer system is configured provide a notification to the user when a second business application requests access to the data, allowing the user to grant or deny access in real-time (FIG. 5A – Send request for consent to share personal information with the requestor and [0035]-[0038] - In response to receiving a request from a requesting device 108-1, the hub server 104 processes the request and sends a corresponding request (or forwards the request from the requesting device 108-1) to a device associated with the individual identified in the request... One or more devices associated with the client environment 114 (e.g., the client device 102-1) sends PII permissions back to the hub server 104. In some implementations, the returned permissions include approval or denial of the request (in whole or in part, as described herein), as well as assignments of particular context profiles for which the permissions are granted. ).
Regarding Claim 10;
Lacey in view of Vestevich and Park disclose the computer system of claim 1.
Vestevich further teaches wherein the computer system enables the user to define and manage data retention policies, including specifying a duration for which different types of data are stored before being automatically deletion ([0018] and [0019] - The user 20 may further, for example, indicate if items of information 120 collected by a business 40 may be kept permanently or must be held only temporarily, such as a period of ninety days).
Similar rationale and motivation is noted for the combination of Vestevich to Lacey in view of Vestevich and Park, as per claim 1, above.
Regarding Claim 11;
Lacey in view of Vestevich and Park disclose the computer system of claim 1.
Vestevich further teaches wherein the computer system enables the user to revoke consent for data sharing with the second business application, causing the computer system to terminate access to the data by the second business application (FIG. 3 and [0015] - Using the privacy marketplace system, the user may create, edit and subscribe to various privacy policies, interact with other users, join groups of people with related privacy interests, interact with business, and other related privacy and social networking activities and [0018] and [0060] - When editing a privacy policy 55, a user 20 may, for example, indicate with a privacy input 115 whether a business 40 may collect a personal information record 120, share the personal information record 120 with third parties, access the personal information record 120 from the privacy marketplace system 10, and/or update the personal information record 120). As construed “may collect” indicates possibility thus reads on may not collect (i.e., revoke).
Similar rationale and motivation is noted for the combination of Vestevich to Lacey in view of Vestevich and Park, as per claim 1, above.
Regarding Claim 14;
Lacey in view of Vestevich and Park disclose the computer system of claim 1.
Lacey further discloses wherein the computer system is configured to analyze user interactions and automatically suggest data management actions, including at least one of categorization, organization, and deletion of redundant or outdated data ([0024] - An active context profile, discussed herein, relates to one or more aspects of the user's current environment, current activity, and/or current interests. Context profiles include, for example, contexts such as “travel,” “home,” “shopping,” “driving,” “do not disturb,” “fitness,” “health emergency,” “work,” “social,” and the like... In some implementations, other devices in addition to or instead of the client device 102-1 maintain or facilitate maintenance of an active context profile. For example, the hub server 104 may communicate with the client device 102-1 to maintain the user's active context profile).
Regarding Claim 16;
Lacey in view of Vestevich and Park disclose the computer system of claim 1.
Vestevich further teaches wherein the computer system is configured to facilitate receipt of at least one of compensation, rewards, discounts, or promotions from the second business application, in exchange for the use of the data (FIG. 2 – 60 – Rewards Earned and [0019] - The privacy policy subscription screen may include a list of rewards that are offered for subscribing to the privacy policy)
Similar rationale and motivation is noted for the combination of Vestevich to Lacey in view of Vestevich and Park, as per claim 1, above.
Regarding Claim(s) 17-20; claim(s) 17-20 is/are directed to a/an method associated with the system claimed in claim(s) 1, 10, 14, and 16. Claim(s) 17-20 is/are similar in scope to claim(s) 1, 10, 14, and 16, and is/are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lacey et al. (US 2016/0098577 A1) in view of Vestevich (US 2014/0282852 A1) and Park et al. (US 9,658,738 B1) and further in view of Wang (US 2023/0306367 A).
Regarding Claim 3;
Lacey in view of Vestevich and Park disclose the computer system of claim 2.
Lacey in view of Vestevich and Park fail to explicitly disclose wherein the computer system is configured to store personally identifying information, financial account data and other information designated as sensitive, locally on the user device, while a remainder of the data is stored remotely on the server.
However, in an analogous art, Wang teaches wherein the computer system is configured to store personally identifying information, financial account data and other information designated as sensitive, locally on the user device, while a remainder of the data is stored remotely on the server (FIG. 5 – Retrieve User Data from User Data Repository and [0055] - Additionally, client-side storage enables tracking user actions without compromising Personally Identifiable Information (PII) as data/information that may contain PII (for example, metadata) are stored locally and may not be transmitted to the server, thereby enhancing the security and privacy of sensitive user information).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinarily skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Wang to the system of Lacey in view of Vestevich and Park to include wherein the computer system is configured to store personally identifying information, financial account data and other information designated as sensitive, locally on the user device, while a remainder of the data is stored remotely on the server.
One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Wang to Lacey in view of Vestevich and Park to do so as it provides / allows enhancing the security and privacy of sensitive user information (Wang, [0055]).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lacey et al. (US 2016/0098577 A1) in view of Vestevich (US 2014/0282852 A1) and Park et al. (US 9,658,738 B1) and further in view of Kumar et al. (US 2009/0150569 A1).
Regarding Claim 4;
Lacey in view of Vestevich and Park disclose the computer system of claim 1.
Lacey in view of Vestevich and Park fail to explicitly disclose wherein the computer system is configured to enable synchronization of at least a portion of the data repository across multiple user devices.
However, in an analogous art, Kumar teaches wherein the computer system is configured to enable synchronization of at least a portion of the data repository across multiple user devices ([0006] - Mobile synchronization systems are provided for synchronizing user data objects among user devices... . Various methods are provided to prioritize and synchronize user data files.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinarily skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kumar to the system of Lacey in view of Vestevich and Park to include wherein the computer system is configured to enable synchronization of at least a portion of the data repository across multiple user devices
One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Wang to Lacey in view of Vestevich and Park to do so as it provides / allows synchronize a user’s digital data among various work environments for easy portable access (Kumar, [0005]).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lacey et al. (US 2016/0098577 A1) in view of Vestevich (US 2014/0282852 A1) and Park et al. (US 9,658,738 B1) and further in view of Howe et al. (US 2016/0140544 A1).
Regarding Claim 9;
Lacey in view of Vestevich and Park disclose the computer system of claim 1.
Lacey in view of Vestevich and Park fail to explicitly disclose wherein the computer system is configured to anonymize or pseudonymize the data before the data is shared with the second business application, to protect an identity of the user while allowing the data to be used.
However, in an analogous art, Howe teaches wherein the computer system is configured to anonymize or pseudonymize the data before the data is shared with the second business application, to protect an identity of the user while allowing the data to be used ([0002] - For example, the United States enacted the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act on Nov. 12, 1999, which addresses concerns relating to consumer financial privacy. In particular, provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act limit when a financial institution may disclose a consumer's “nonpublic personal information” (sometimes referred to a “NPI”) to non-affiliated third parties. Accordingly, when a financial institution desires to transmit consumer transaction data to a non-affiliated third party, it is important that consumer transaction details be “de-identified” by removing any private or personally identifiable information (sometimes referred to as “PII”) of the consumers, or by “anonymizing” the consumer transaction data. Examples of a consumer's NPI and/or PII may include, but are not limited to, a name, address, telephone number, and numerous other personal facts such as homeownership status, income level, and birth date. Thus, de-identifying or anonymizing consumer PII before providing the consumer transaction data to a third party that wishes to identify and/or analyze consumer spending patterns, behaviors and/or tendencies, for example, is meant to protect the privacy of individual consumers).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinarily skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Howe to the system of Lacey in view of Vestevich and Park to include wherein the computer system is configured to anonymize or pseudonymize the data before the data is shared with the second business application, to protect an identity of the user while allowing the data to be used
One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Howe to Lacey in view of Vestevich and Park to do so as it provides / allows to protect the privacy of individual consumers (Howe, [0002]).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lacey et al. (US 2016/0098577 A1) in view of Vestevich (US 2014/0282852 A1) and Park et al. (US 9,658,738 B1) and further in view of Moeller et al. (US 9,069,885 B1).
Regarding Claim 12;
Lacey in view of Vestevich and Park disclose the computer system of claim 1.
Lacey in view of Vestevich and Park fail to explicitly disclose wherein the computer system is configured to maintain a version control of the data in the data repository, enabling reversion to a previous version of the data.
However, in an analogous art, Moeller teaches wherein the computer system is configured to maintain a version control of the data in the data repository, enabling reversion to a previous version of the data (col. 2, lines 65-col. 3, lines 5 - Aspects of the present disclosure include providing individuals and/or organizations the ability to retrieve previously stored versions of data, and perform automated periodic monitoring of their data via the CRS. User's data (user's content) monitored by the CRS include user's content such as source code, files for hosting websites, audio files, video files, data files, system files, image files, or any other content that is typically stored in third party servers).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinarily skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Moeller to the system of Lacey in view of Vestevich and Park to include wherein the computer system is configured to maintain a version control of the data in the data repository, enabling reversion to a previous version of the data.
One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Moeller to Lacey in view of Vestevich and Park to do so as it provides / allows for automated retrieval and storage of online digital content and to quickly revert to the last known "good" version (Moeller, col. 2, lines 29-55).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lacey et al. (US 2016/0098577 A1) in view of Vestevich (US 2014/0282852 A1) and Park et al. (US 9,658,738 B1) and further in view of Choffnes et al. (US 2017/0048698 A1).
Regarding Claim 13;
Lacey in view of Vestevich and Park disclose the computer system of claim 1.
Lacey in view of Vestevich and Park fail to explicitly disclose wherein the computer system is configured to detect unauthorized access or anomalies in data usage, and at least one of provide an alert to the user or automatically restrict access to the data repository.
However, in an analogous art, Choffnes teaches wherein the computer system is configured to detect unauthorized access or anomalies in data usage, and at least one of provide an alert to the user or automatically restrict access to the data repository ([0017] and [0044] - The information leak control application may operate in an information leak detection mode 310. In the information leak detection mode 310, one or more device network flows 115 may be analyzed for information leaks using the model 335 (or a variation thereof) developed during the model generation mode 305 of operation. For example, information leak detection 340 may be performed on a device network flow 115 using the model 335. In some embodiments, a classifier of the model 335 may indicate whether a device network flow 115 contains an information leak... In some embodiments, interactive leak detection may include using push notification and/or other channels to notify a user of information leaks immediately when detected and allow a user to immediately or substantially immediate provide a response to the information leak (for instance, allow, deny, replace, and/or the like).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinarily skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Choffnes to the system of Lacey in view of Vestevich and Park to include wherein the computer system is configured to detect unauthorized access or anomalies in data usage, and at least one of provide an alert to the user or automatically restrict access to the data repository.
One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Choffnes to Lacey in view of Vestevich and Park to do so as it provides / allows for efficient and effective methods for the identification of information leaks or control over network flows of mobile devices (Choffnes, [0002]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 KARI L SCHMIDT whose telephone number is (571)270-1385. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am - 6pm (MDT).
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, Luu Pham can be reached at (571)270-5002. 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.
/KARI L SCHMIDT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2439
Prosecution Insights