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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to the application filed on 1/13/2025.
Claim 1 is pending and has been examined.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claim 1 is directed to a method. Thus, on its face it falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Step 2A prong 1:
The following limitations, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, are merely descriptive of abstract concepts:
a synchronization entity communicating with a first entity requesting a list of customers that have authorized communication with the first entity, wherein the list of customers includes for at least one customer a level of consent to communications from the first entity provider;
the first entity transmitting the list of customers to the synchronization entity; and
the synchronization entity transmitting the customer consent received from the first entity to at least one other entity
But for the inclusion of generic computing components, the steps of the claims can be performed mentally or with pen and paper. A human would be able to request a list of customers that have authorized communications a first entity, receive the list form the first entity, and send the consent received from the first entity to another entity. As a result, the claim falls under the mental process grouping of abstract ideas.
Further, the claim falls under certain methods of organizing human activities in the form of commercial or legal interactions (in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing, or sales activities.) The claim seeks to obtain permission to contact customers of one entity by transferring consent from those customers to the second entity for purposes of providing marketing materials (see spec page 1).
Step 2A prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the following additional elements: synchronization module (claim 1); first SaaS platform (claim 1); electronic communication (claim 1); other SaaS platform (claim 1);
The synchronization module is recited at a high level of generality and appears to merely be the name given to the software to perform the operations (spec page 8). The module merely sends and receives data (communicating, transmitting). Nothing in the claim improves upon computers themselves, technology, or a technical field. Thus, synchronization module does not go beyond the “apply it” level of implementation (See MPEP 2016.05(f)).
The first SaaS platform and second SaaS platform merely provide a general link to a particular technological environment (i.e. on SaaS platforms). The SaaS platforms merely represent the parties providing and interested in the consent to provide communications to customers. Nothing in the claims improves upon SaaS platforms, technology, or a technical field (See MPEP 2016.05(h)).
Accordingly, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Similarly, as above with regard to practical application, the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not provide an inventive concept as they merely provide generic computing components used as a tool to implement the abstract idea and provide a general link to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e. in SaaS environment).
As a result, the claims are not patent eligible.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Maselli (US 2014/0358950) in view of Williams et al (US 9,621,357)
As per claim 1:
Maselli teaches:
A computer-based method for providing electronic communication marketing consent synchronization across multiple third party Software as a Service (SaaS) integrations, comprising the steps of:
a synchronization module communicating with a first SaaS platform requesting a list of customers that have authorized electronic communication with the first SaaS platform, wherein the list of customers includes for at least one customer a level of consent to electronic communications from the first SaaS provider; ([0035] As an option (Item 5), the customer may authorize receiving marketing communication from a select group of enterprises (112, 113, 114) or from all member enterprises 110. The customer 150 is given controls, filters and general spam restrictions so that unwanted marketing data can be blocked. Once the customer has selected the enterprises 110, the delivery channels 130 that the customer wants to use to receive different types of messages, are selected (item 6 step 205). FIG. 3, step 320 provides an exemplary example of a message from an enterprise 114 being divided into different formats for delivery. [0038] In the next step 310, the enterprise 114 prepares the unique communication content by customer and sends the customer list and communications content to the information delivery service 120. As defined in step 315, the information delivery service 120 will receive the communications content, add the mobile phone number reference and file the data in the communication content directory 125. The information delivery service 120 will extract any demographic data from the customer metadata directory 124, which is needed to format the message. The customer 150 delivery preferences, stored in the delivery preference directory 123, are retrieved by the customer 150 using their mobile phone number. [0040] The store 114 sends the marketing communication content and customer list to the information delivery service 120 where it is stored in the communications directory 125.)
the first SaaS platform transmitting the list of customers to the synchronization module; and [0038] In the next step 310, the enterprise 114 prepares the unique communication content by customer and sends the customer list and communications content to the information delivery service 120. As defined in step 315, the information delivery service 120 will receive the communications content, add the mobile phone number reference and file the data in the communication content directory 125. The information delivery service 120 will extract any demographic data from the customer metadata directory 124, which is needed to format the message. The customer 150 delivery preferences, stored in the delivery preference directory 123, are retrieved by the customer 150 using their mobile phone number. [0040] The store 114 sends the marketing communication content and customer list to the information delivery service 120 where it is stored in the communications directory 125.)
Maselli does not expressly teach the synchronization module transmitting the customer consent received from the first SaaS platform to at least one other SaaS platform.
Williams teaches:
the synchronization module transmitting the customer consent received from the first SaaS platform to at least one other SaaS platform. ([C9L1-24] CM adapters 110, 160 communicate with the CMS 102, 152 and are able to translate the relationships stored in the CMR 105 into data that can be exchanged with the adapter in the other enterprise and understood as a unique new or existing individual whose records are stored in CMR 155. CM Connectors 112, 162 communicate with the data application 108 and allow for information generated by the CM adapters 110, 160 to be transmitted over network 130 through interfaces 114 and 164. [C24L58-67] After the patient grants the requested consent, the root server may distribute the authority to the relevant daughter server to update the consent profile. The daughter server, pursuant to the authority granted by the root server, can update the consent management profile on other servers and on adapters installed at the enterprises housing the patient's records. After the adapters at the psychologist's office and the patient's primary care physician are properly updated, the psychologist may then be able to access the mental health records housed by the primary care physician. See also [C11L4-51])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to include the synchronization module transmitting the customer consent received from the first SaaS platform to at least one other SaaS platform as taught by Williams with the opt in communications list sharing of Maselli in order to manage data access controls across federated networks ([C1L5-7]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER STROUD whose telephone number is (571)272-7930. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri. 9AM-5PM.
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, Waseem Ashraff can be reached at (571) 270-3948. 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.
CHRISTOPHER STROUD
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3621B
/CHRISTOPHER STROUD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621