DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to the response to amendment/remarks filed 20 June 2026.
Claim 1 has been amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending; claims 14-20 are withdrawn.
Claims 1-13 are rejected as shown in this 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 .
Response to Amendment/Remarks
Regarding 35 USC § 101, Applicant’s remarks have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the “claims therefore are not directed merely to a legal concept or organizing human activity; rather, the claims apply any consent-related concept in a practical computer-network environment that captures multi-channel consent evidence, electronically links a consumer-specific custom link to a form submission, and generates electronically retrievable consent record data.” Remarks at 6. Even a process practiced in a computer-network environment can be found to be directed to a certain method of organizing human activity. The recited “additional elements” that are analyzed under the “practical application” analysis are merely generic in nature. Applicant has not provided support for a conclusion that the recited device, processor, and memory are anything other than generic. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Regarding 35 USC § 103, additional art has been found to teach the added limitations, as shown in the rejections below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the consent record data" in line 8 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-13 are rejected due to their dependence upon a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-13 recite a device comprising a processor, memory, and logic which is considered a machine or manufacture.
Step 2A-Prong One
Claims 1-13 recite the concept of obtaining and recording consent from a consumer such that the consent is in compliance with legal requirements (see, for example, “receive a request for a consumer consent capture; record verbal consent from consumer; generate a custom link, wherein the custom link comprises an encrypted identifier associated with the consumer, and wherein generating the consent record data comprises associating the verbal consent recording and an identifier linking the consent record data to a customer relationship management profile of the consumer; transmit a message to the consumer, wherein the message incorporates at least the customized link; receive consent form data associated with the consumer; and generate consent record data” in claim 1, “the consent record data is configured as prior express written consent” in claim 11, “the prior express written consent is formatted to comply with one or more legal requirements” in claim 12, and “the one or more legal requirements includes at least the Telephone Consumer Protection Act” in claim 13). This concept falls into the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas including legal interactions and managing personal behavior. The remainder of the dependent claims further limit this abstract idea by further defining details of the process such as who makes the request, details of the request-obtaining form, how the message is sent, etc. None of the dependent claims take the claims out of the identified abstract idea grouping. Thus, claims 1-13 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A-Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the additional element of a device comprising a processor, a memory, and consent capture logic and includes no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The device does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A-Prong Two, the additional element in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims do not provide an inventive concept (significantly more than the abstract idea). The claims are ineligible.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 11,829,456 (“Slavin”) in view of US 9,256,774 (“Koster”) and US 2021/0109897 (“Brechbuhl”).
Regarding Claim 1, Slavin teaches a device, comprising: a processor; a memory communicatively coupled to the processor; and a consent capture logic (See column 18 line 41- column 19 line 2 describing the hardware implementation.) configured to:
receive a request for a consumer consent capture (See “In FIG. 6, illustrative examples of sample pads are shown at 600. At 602 is shown illustrative displays on the consumer device of text messages exchanged when the consumer texts “abc123” (as shown at top of 602) to “78527” (the number shown on the pad at 600) and receives back a text message (as shown at bottom of 602) with a link to a registration page for the pharmaceutical company” in column 8 line 34;
generate a custom link; transmit a message to the consumer, wherein the message incorporates at least the customized link (See column 3 lines 21-62 describing the generation and transmission of the customized link, “In FIG. 6, illustrative examples of sample pads are shown at 600. At 602 is shown illustrative displays on the consumer device of text messages exchanged when the consumer texts “abc123” (as shown at top of 602) to “78527” (the number shown on the pad at 600) and receives back a text message (as shown at bottom of 602) with a link to a registration page for the pharmaceutical company” in column 8 line 34, and Fig. 6 showing the transmission of the customized link to the user at 602.);
receive consent form data associated with the consumer (See “At 604 is shown an illustrative example of a registration page which is opened in a browser application and displayed on the consumer device when the link is activated. In this example, the user registers with the pharmaceutical company to authorize exchanging text messages, to authorize the pharmaceutical company to store the patient's Personal Health Information, and to receive a coupon. At 606 is shown a text message of an acknowledgement of the completed registration in the text message application and displayed on the consumer device” in column 8 line 40 and Fig. 6 showing the consent form.); and
generate consent record data (See column 13 lines 34-64 describing “what happens when a patient views and accepts a consent form” and item 502 in Fig. 4C showing the coupon server record which includes a “Consent Received” record.).
Slavin does not expressly teach record verbal consent from consumer; wherein the custom link comprises an encrypted identifier associated with the consumer, and wherein generating the consent record data comprises associating the verbal consent recording and an identifier linking the consent record data to a customer relationship management profile of the consumer.
However, Koster teaches record verbal consent from consumer (See Fig. 6 which demonstrates a consent record wherein 670 indicates a verbal consent that was received and “The example shows three rows 650, 660, 670, which illustrate different records that may be generated by the call center. The first row 650 provides an identifier for linking to the electronic consent, which is in SMS format and was generated from the originating telephone number 404 555-1212. This was received by the call center on 3-1-2012 (Mar. 1, 2012), and was received in association with campaign 4125. This value may be used to identify the enterprise. The second row 660 also reflects receipt of an SMS form of electronic consent. The third row 670 reflects that the electronic consent was provided in voice form, and the link in first column provides a URL to the voice recording. The campaign identifier in this row (which is different relative to the first two rows) can be used to identify which enterprise the voice consent was provided in regard to” in column 19 line 1.); and wherein generating the consent record data comprises associating the verbal consent recording and an identifier linking the consent record data to a customer relationship management profile of the consumer (See Fig. 6 which demonstrates a consent record wherein 670 indicates a verbal consent was received and “The example shows three rows 650, 660, 670, which illustrate different records that may be generated by the call center. The first row 650 provides an identifier for linking to the electronic consent, which is in SMS format and was generated from the originating telephone number 404 555-1212. This was received by the call center on 3-1-2012 (Mar. 1, 2012), and was received in association with campaign 4125. This value may be used to identify the enterprise. The second row 660 also reflects receipt of an SMS form of electronic consent. The third row 670 reflects that the electronic consent was provided in voice form, and the link in first column provides a URL to the voice recording. The campaign identifier in this row (which is different relative to the first two rows) can be used to identify which enterprise the voice consent was provided in regard to” in column 19 line 1.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Slavin and Koster to obtain and store verbal consent. The claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, in the combination each element merely performs the same function as it does separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Further, Brechbuhl teaches wherein the custom link comprises an encrypted identifier associated with the consumer (See “At 312, the system generates a link to a document object. The link may include an image source (e.g., href) or source for a group of content objects (e.g., source identifier). The link or source may contain a profile identifier (e.g., user identifier) that may be transmitted back to the server upon activation of a link in the document object. The user identifier and/or link may be encrypted. At 315 and 320, the document objects may be distributed (e.g., over the internet) using a secure mail transfer protocol (SMTP) or other communication protocol” in ¶ 0050.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Slavin, Koster, and Brechbuhl to provide the link with an encrypted identifier associated with the consumer. The claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, in the combination each element merely performs the same function as it does separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 2, Slavin further teaches the message is a text message (See “In FIG. 6, illustrative examples of sample pads are shown at 600. At 602 is shown illustrative displays on the consumer device of text messages exchanged when the consumer texts “abc123” (as shown at top of 602) to “78527” (the number shown on the pad at 600) and receives back a text message (as shown at bottom of 602) with a link to a registration page for the pharmaceutical company” in column 8 line 34 and Fig. 6 showing the text message at 602.).
Regarding Claim 3, Slavin further teaches the consent capture logic is further configured to store the consent record data (See column 13 lines 34-64 describing “what happens when a patient views and accepts a consent form” and item 502 in Fig. 4C showing the coupon server record which includes a “Consent Received” record.).
Regarding Claim 4, Slavin does not expressly teach the consent record data further includes at least the verbal consent recording.
However, Koster teaches the consent record data further includes at least the verbal consent recording (See Fig. 6 which demonstrates a consent record wherein 670 indicates a verbal consent was received and “The example shows three rows 650, 660, 670, which illustrate different records that may be generated by the call center. The first row 650 provides an identifier for linking to the electronic consent, which is in SMS format and was generated from the originating telephone number 404 555-1212. This was received by the call center on 3-1-2012 (Mar. 1, 2012), and was received in association with campaign 4125. This value may be used to identify the enterprise. The second row 660 also reflects receipt of an SMS form of electronic consent. The third row 670 reflects that the electronic consent was provided in voice form, and the link in first column provides a URL to the voice recording. The campaign identifier in this row (which is different relative to the first two rows) can be used to identify which enterprise the voice consent was provided in regard to” in column 19 line 1.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Slavin and Koster to obtain verbal consent. The motivation, as demonstrated in Koster, is to obtain consent in any number of ways. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, in the combination each element merely performs the same function as it does separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 5, Slavin further teaches the custom link is configured to direct the consumer to a consent form (See “In FIG. 6, illustrative examples of sample pads are shown at 600. At 602 is shown illustrative displays on the consumer device of text messages exchanged when the consumer texts “abc123” (as shown at top of 602) to “78527” (the number shown on the pad at 600) and receives back a text message (as shown at bottom of 602) with a link to a registration page for the pharmaceutical company. At 604 is shown an illustrative example of a registration page which is opened in a browser application and displayed on the consumer device when the link is activated. In this example, the user registers with the pharmaceutical company to authorize exchanging text messages” in column 8 line 34 and Fig. 6 showing the consent form at 604.).
Regarding Claim 6, Slavin further teaches the consent form is associated with a client requesting consent from the consumer (See “In FIG. 6, illustrative examples of sample pads are shown at 600. At 602 is shown illustrative displays on the consumer device of text messages exchanged when the consumer texts “abc123” (as shown at top of 602) to “78527” (the number shown on the pad at 600) and receives back a text message (as shown at bottom of 602) with a link to a registration page for the pharmaceutical company. At 604 is shown an illustrative example of a registration page which is opened in a browser application and displayed on the consumer device when the link is activated. In this example, the user registers with the pharmaceutical company to authorize exchanging text messages” in column 8 line 34 and Fig. 6 showing the client “PharmaCo.”).
Regarding Claim 7, Slavin further teaches the consent form is bespoke for the client (See item 604 in Fig. 6 showing the form customized for the client “PharmaCo” by inclusion of their logo/branding.).
Regarding Claim 8, Slavin further teaches the bespoke consent form includes at least client branding (See item 604 in Fig. 6 showing the form customized for the client “PharmaCo” by inclusion of their logo/branding.).
Regarding Claim 9, Slavin further teaches the consent capture logic is further configured to transmit the consent record data to the client (See column 13 lines 34-64 describing “what happens when a patient views and accepts a consent form” and item 502 in Fig. 4C showing the coupon server record which includes a “Consent Received” record.).
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slavin in view of Koster and Brechbuhl, and further in view of US 2023/0169519 (“Dressler”).
Regarding Claim 10, neither Slavin nor Koster expressly teach the request for the consumer consent capture is received from a customer relationship management software.
However, Dressler teaches the request for the consumer consent capture is received from a customer relationship management software (See “In accordance with the disclosed embodiments, a user consent may be associated with one of at least three possible values comprising: a first value indicating that the user has not yet responded with a grant or denial of consent; a second value indicating that the user has granted consent; and a third value indicating that the user has denied consent. In some embodiments, the third value also may indicate that the user has revoked a previously-granted consent. The automated consent management system may be configured to filter those user consents that are assigned to the first value and send requests for user consents to the users associated with the filtered user consents. In some embodiments, the user consent values may be filtered and their appropriate users contacted periodically, at predetermined times, or asynchronously, such as at the start of a new campaign or upon occurrence of one or more predetermined events” in ¶ 0012 and “For example, the consent management server 200 may send a message 140 to a user 120 requesting that user's consent, for example, to communicate using text messages. In response, the user 120 may send a responsive message 130 either granting or denying the server's requested user consent” in ¶ 0029.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Slavin, Koster, Brechbuhl, and Dressler to receive a request from software. The motivation, as shown in Dressler, is to utilize the software to identify users who may need their consent updated. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, in the combination each element merely performs the same function as it does separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 11, neither Slavin nor Koster expressly teach the consent record data is configured as prior express written consent.
However, Dressler teaches the consent record data is configured as prior express written consent (See ¶¶ 0002 and 0003 describing the TCPA and its express written consent requirements, “The user consents 330 comprise one or more user-consent values 332-338 corresponding to different types of user consents. For example, in the example of FIG. 3, the user record 305 includes a TCPA consent value 332, HIPAA consent value 334, payment consent value 336, and a marketing consent value 338. In this example, the TCPA consent value 332 may indicate whether the user has consented to text-message communications” in ¶ 0041, and “the consent manager 240 may be configured to sequentially scan each user record 305 to identify users having the first value assigned to a particular type of consent, such as TCPA consent value 332” in ¶ 0044.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Slavin, Koster, Brechbuhl, and Dressler to ensure the consent is in compliance with legal standards such as the TCPA. The motivation, as demonstrated in Dressler, is that it is required by the TCPA to maintain compliance. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, in the combination each element merely performs the same function as it does separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 12, neither Slavin nor Koster expressly teach the prior express written consent is formatted to comply with one or more legal requirements.
However, Dressler teaches the prior express written consent is formatted to comply with one or more legal requirements (See ¶¶ 0002 and 0003 describing the TCPA and its express written consent requirements, “The user consents 330 comprise one or more user-consent values 332-338 corresponding to different types of user consents. For example, in the example of FIG. 3, the user record 305 includes a TCPA consent value 332, HIPAA consent value 334, payment consent value 336, and a marketing consent value 338. In this example, the TCPA consent value 332 may indicate whether the user has consented to text-message communications” in ¶ 0041, and “the consent manager 240 may be configured to sequentially scan each user record 305 to identify users having the first value assigned to a particular type of consent, such as TCPA consent value 332” in ¶ 0044.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Slavin, Koster, Brechbuhl, and Dressler to ensure the consent is in compliance with legal standards such as the TCPA. The motivation, as demonstrated in Dressler, is that it is required by the TCPA to maintain compliance. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, in the combination each element merely performs the same function as it does separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 13, neither Slavin nor Koster expressly teach the one or more legal requirements includes at least the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
However, Dressler teaches the one or more legal requirements includes at least the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (See ¶¶ 0002 and 0003 describing the TCPA and its express written consent requirements, “The user consents 330 comprise one or more user-consent values 332-338 corresponding to different types of user consents. For example, in the example of FIG. 3, the user record 305 includes a TCPA consent value 332, HIPAA consent value 334, payment consent value 336, and a marketing consent value 338. In this example, the TCPA consent value 332 may indicate whether the user has consented to text-message communications” in ¶ 0041, and “the consent manager 240 may be configured to sequentially scan each user record 305 to identify users having the first value assigned to a particular type of consent, such as TCPA consent value 332” in ¶ 0044.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Slavin, Koster, Brechbuhl, and Dressler to ensure the consent is in compliance with legal standards such as the TCPA. The motivation, as demonstrated in Dressler, is that it is required by the TCPA to maintain compliance. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, in the combination each element merely performs the same function as it does separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
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 MEREDITH A LONG whose telephone number is (571)272-3196. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 6.
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, Ilana Spar can be reached on 571-270-7537. 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.
/MEREDITH A LONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622
