DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to a non-provisional utility patent application filed by Applicant on 11/27/2024.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement PTO-1449
The Information Disclosure Statements submitted by applicant on 11/27/2024, 4/25/2025, and 5/7/2025 have been considered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.97. Form PTO-1449 signed and attached hereto.
Double Patenting
No conflicting application or issued patent was identified that would require a rejection under double patenting.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the lettering in Figures 7A–B and 8 are illegible. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The present application, as claimed, satisfies the requirements for patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1–5, 10–16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weinstein (US 2017/0078332 A1, published Mar. 16, 2017) in view of Wilburn (US 2011/0010243 A1, published Jan. 13, 2011).
Regarding claims 1, 10, and 12, Weinstein discloses: a computer-implemented method for managing user interaction data, the method comprising: defining data producers and data consumers of software applications defined on a platform solution (restriction compliance engine defines a data source 108 from which the data originates and a data destination 126 with the request for data is disseminated. Weinstein Figure 1 and ¶ 31–32.); defining user interaction types to represent specific types of data that are to be produced by one or more of the data producers (“traits” define metadata that describe characteristics of data collected by an online service provider from a third-party website and include user interactions that generated data such as name, address, age, demographic information, IP address, etc. Weinstein ¶ 24. “Segments” are defined as stored collection of traits that originate from data sources. Weinstein ¶ 26.); defining a mapping between one or more purposes and one or more user interaction types, wherein a data consumer is [allowed] to consume a user interaction type stored by a data producer when the user interaction type is mapped to a respective purpose associated with the data consumer (labeling data with tags such as, “PII” indicating data types, and “ONSITE_AD_TARGETING” to indicate specific purposes of user interaction data, that are controlled. Weinstein ¶ 28.); and in response to receiving a request from a user for performing a data read operation or data write operation at a first software application of the software applications, invoking a user data management service defined for the platform solution for performing evaluation of the access configurations and the mappings (the compliance engine receives a request to disseminate the data segment and then determines the set of restrictions corresponding to the traits and the segments and the destination system. Weinstein ¶ 32.), wherein based on the performed evaluation, relevant data of a user interaction type that is allowed to be consumed or produced by the software application is provided to the first software application (determining an intersection between the set of activities and permissions and the destination system and determining if a violation is indicated or whether the intersecting set is empty indicating no restrictions violated. Weinstein ¶ 32.).
Weinstein does not disclose: selectively indicating certain types of user interaction data allowed to be collected; configuring access configurations on tenant level for one or more customers of the platform solution, wherein the access configuration defines a set of purposes defines as active for users of a tenant of the platform solution.
However, Wilburn does disclose: selectively indicating certain types of user interaction data allowed to be collected (collection and use of specific user interaction data must be explicitly allowed by the user that selectively allows certain types of user interaction data collection while disallowing other types of collection. Wilburn ¶¶ Figure 4A and ¶¶ 57–59.); configuring access configurations on tenant level for one or more customers of the platform solution, wherein the access configuration defines a set of purposes defines as active for users of a tenant of the platform solution (operation of the mechanism that provides information about a user is configured to operate in different modes under which different amounts or types of information is provided. Wilburn ¶ 34. User interacts with the client computing devices allowing for multiple users per device and users are identified and access is defined for user login. Wilburn ¶ 38.).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the defining of providers and consumers of user interaction data and categorizing and controlling data types and use purpose of user interaction data of Weinstein with categorizing data types and purposes that are allowed and configuring customers according to set of purposes based upon the teachings of Wilburn. The motivation being to enable advertisers to provide useful ads to users based upon user selected configurations and to account for multiple users of a certain device. Wilburn ¶¶ 31 and 38.
Regarding claims 2, 11, and 13, Weinstein in view of Wilburn discloses the limitations of claims 1, 10, and 12, respectively, wherein the one or more user interaction types are uniquely identifiable (specifying “ONSITE_AD_TARGETING” and “OFFSITE_AD_TARGETING” to indicate specific purposes of user interaction data, that are controlled. Weinstein ¶¶ 28 and 36.).
Regarding claims 3 and 14, Weinstein in view of Wilburn discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 12, respectively, wherein a data consumer of the data consumers of the software applications defines a purpose associated with providing access to consume at least one of the user interaction types (“ONSITE_AD_TARGETING” to indicate specific purposes of user interaction data, that are controlled. Weinstein ¶ 28.).
Regarding claims 4 and 15, Weinstein in view of Wilburn discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 12, respectively, wherein the purpose is defined on software application level and is usable for evaluating data access upon receiving requests from a user of an account defined for the platform solution (determining an intersection between the set of activities and permissions and the destination system and determining if a violation is indicated or whether the intersecting set is empty indicating no restrictions violated. Weinstein ¶¶ 28 and 32.).
Regarding claims 5 and 16, Weinstein in view of Wilburn discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 12, respectively, wherein a single purpose is associated with a single or multiple user interaction types (“traits” can include many different types of unique data and are associated with specific purpose labels to indicate a set of restrictions for specific data. Weinstein ¶¶ 24–25.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6–9, 17–20 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Webber (US 2018/0173375 A1, published Jun. 21, 2018), specifying information into particular fields or other user interaction information and giving publishers control over what information is collected and not collected; Robertson (US 2006/0200794 A1, published Sep. 7, 2006), sorting user interaction data according to the intended use by the user computing device; Roy (US 2021/0241289 A1, published Aug. 5, 2021), informing the user of the types of user interaction data it will collect and start collecting after user explicitly permitting collection; Brannon (US 2022/0300648 A1, published Sep. 22, 2022), capturing user interaction data relying on customized user consent; Parejo (US 2023/0214240 A1, published Jul. 6, 2023), privacy protection rules that observer user interaction data that contains sensitive information and removes it before it is stored.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VANCE M LITTLE whose telephone number is (571) 270-0408. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 9:30am - 5:30pm.
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, Jung (Jay) Kim can be reached on (571) 272-3804. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/VANCE M LITTLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2493
Prosecution Insights