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 amendment filed on 6/15/2026.
Claim 1 has been amended.
Claims 2-19 have been added.
Claim 1-19 are 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.
Claims 1-19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claim 1-19 are directed to a method. Thus, on their face they fall 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:
Claim 1:
fielding, by a first entity, a form to a customer requesting authorization to receive communications;
requesting by the synchronization entity, a list of customers that have authorized the communication with the first entity or who have withdrawn consent for the communication, wherein the list of customers includes for at least one customer, a level of consent to communications from the first entity;
transmitting, by the first entity, the list of customers to the synchronization entity;
transmitting, by the synchronization entity, the list of customers that have authorized the communication received from the first entity to at least one other entity;
transmitting, by the synchronization entity, the list of customers who have withdrawn consent for the communication received from the first entity to at least one other entity;
updating, by the at least one other entity, a customer status of a customer record, wherein last one other entity does not field a form to the customers for further consent for communication or withdrawal from communication;
storing, by the synchronization entity, the list of customers that have authorized the communication received from the first entity;
The following dependent claims, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, are merely descriptive of abstract concepts:
4. wherein the level of consent determines whether the list of customers that have authorized the communication is transmitted to the at least one other entity, and wherein there is more than one other entity, determines which at least one other entity my receive the list of customers that have authorized the communication.
5. wherein the list of customers that have authorized the communication is transmitted to the at least one other entity asynchronously.
6. wherein when a customer only authorizes the first entity to send communication, the synchronization entity stores the authorization for the customer and transmits a change of status of a customer record from authorization for communication to no authorization for communication in the at least one other entity.
7. and any one of the entities may transmit the list of customers that have authorized the communication to the synchronization entity synchronously or asynchronously.
8. further requesting, by the synchronization entity, a second authorization from customers on the list of customers that have authorized the communication from the first entity.
9. further determining, by the synchronization entity, whether a customer withdrew from the communication; and
changing the status of the customer record from authorization for communication to no authorization for communication.
10. further determining, by the synchronization entity, whether at least one SAAS provider opted to receive customer consent changes, wherein the SAAS provider is comprised of at least one entity.
11. wherein if the at least one SAAS provider opted in customer consent changes, the synchronization entity sends a communication to the at least one SAAS provider to determine if a customer record exists in the at least one entity.
12. wherein the levels of consent determine which entities within the at least one SAAS provider receives the list of customers that have authorized the communication.
13. further transmitting, by the synchronization entity, customer contact information to the at least one other SAAS provider, wherein the customer contact information is updated and stored in the synchronization entity.
15. further comprising transmitting, by the first entity a welcome message to a customer who consents to communication, wherein the welcome message acknowledges the at least one other entity that will receive the customer list from the synchronization entity.
16. further storing, by the synchronization entity, at least one first party site-owner declaration.
17. wherein the list of customers that have authorized the communication includes an identification information for each customer on the list of customers and a level of consent for communication associated with each customer.
18. further transmitting, by the synchronization entity, a first party site-owner declaration to the at least one other entity.
19. further transmitting, by the synchronization entity, a list of customer order changes, wherein the order changes determines a change in the level of consent authorized by a customer.
The claims 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). Further, a record is kept of which customers consent to communications and which customers have revoked consent.
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, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10,11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19 ) having a processor and nonvolatile memory (claim 1, 14); first SaaS platform (claim 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 15); electronic communication (claim 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 15, 17); at least one other SaaS platform (claim 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 13, 15, 18); wherein the first SaaS platform and the at least one other SaaS platform are located within a same network (claim 2); further comprising connecting, by an application programming interface located within the synchronization module, the synchronization module to the network containing the first SaaS platform and the at least one other Saas platform. (claim 3); wherein the first Saas platform is any one of the SaaS platforms within the network (claim 7); wherein when the synchronization entity is in operation, the processor executes a software stored within the nonvolatile memory to communicate data to and from the nonvolatile memory and generally control operations of the synchronization module pursuant to the software. (claim 14);
The synchronization module having a processor and nonvolatile memory is recited at a high level of generality and appears to merely be a generic computing device (spec page 8; Fig. 2). The module merely sends and receives data (requesting, transmitting), processes data (updating), and stores data (storing). 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 at least one other 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)).
The fact that the communications are “electronic” merely provides a general link to the particular technological environment. The communication being “electronic” merely provides a link to digital communication as opposed to paper, verbal, or any other type of communications. Nothing in the claims improves upon electronic communications technology or a technical field (See MPEP 2016.05(h)).
The limitations of wherein the first SaaS platform and the at least one other SaaS platform are located within a same network, further comprising connecting, by an application programming interface located within the synchronization module, the synchronization module to the network containing the first SaaS platform and the at least one other Saas platform, and wherein the first Saas platform is any one of the SaaS platforms within the network merely provides a general link to a particular technological environment (i.e. networked computing). The fact that the parties involved are networked merely provides the environment for sending and receiving data. Nothing the claims improves upon network technology or a technical field (See MPEP 2016.05(h)).
The limitation including wherein when the synchronization entity is in operation, the processor executes a software stored within the nonvolatile memory to communicate data to and from the nonvolatile memory and generally control operations of the synchronization module pursuant to the software merely provides a general link to generic computer implementation. Nothing in the claims improves computer implementation, 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.
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, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 17, and 19 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) in view of Parsons Freund et al (US 2023/0198769) hereafter “Parsons”
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, via a synchronization module having a processor and a nonvolatile memory, the method comprising the steps of: ([0029], Fig. 1, element 120);
fielding, by a first SaaS platform, a form to a customer requesting authorization to receive electronic communications ([0034] A preferred enrollment access would be a web site, accessed by an internet enabled device. However, talking to a representative or filling out a form are some of the other options that may be offered. Item 2 initiates the data entry process by registering the customer's mobile phone number. The mobile phone number is entered first since all other account data is referenced to the mobile phone number. Next the customer 150 selects the enterprises 110 from the information delivery service 120 list of member enterprises (Item 3). These enterprises can be enterprises that the customer 150 already does business with and wants to use the information delivery service 120 as the communication link to the enterprise 110 or enterprises 110 the customer envisions doing business with. [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).
requesting, by the, synchronization module, a list of customers that have authorized the electronic communication with the first SaaS platform or who have withdrawn consent for the electronic communication, wherein the list of customers includes for at least one customer a level of consent to electronic communications from the first SaaS platform; ([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.)
transmitting, by the first SaaS platform, the list of customers to the synchronization module; [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.)
storing, by the synchronization module, the list of customers that have authorized the electronic communication received from the first SaaS platform in the nonvolatile memory. [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.
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:
transmitting, by the synchronization module, the list of customers that have authorized the electronic communication 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]).
Maselli in view of Williams does not expressly teach transmitting, by the synchronization module, the list of customers who have withdrawn consent for the electronic communication received from the first SaaS platform to at least one other SaaS platform and updating, by the at least one other Saas platform, a customer status of a customer record, wherein least one other Saas platform does not field a form to the customers for further consent for electronic communication or withdrawal from electronic communication.
Parsons teaches:
transmitting, by the synchronization module, the list of customers who have withdrawn consent for the electronic communication received from the first SaaS platform to at least one other SaaS platform; ([0020] The systems and methods herein provide a centralized location where customers can choose to opt-out of TA by members. Merchants can register their endpoints with a service provider that hosts an opt-out service. Merchants can specify details regarding their endpoints, such as preferred hashing algorithms, authorization tokens, flags, and other preferences. Users can select any or all of the merchants registered with the opt-out service and opt-out of TA by entering their email address or another similar customer identifier. That is, while email addresses have been disclosed as the means by which a customer can be identified, the present disclosure is not limited to only the use of email addresses. However, a hashed version of the customer's email address can be used as the identifier for associating offline and online data related to the customer and their devices, and to recognize the same customer on different websites or applications. [0021] The opt-out service can convert the customer's email into the format preferred by each of the merchants and provide the same to the merchants for processing. The merchants can report back to the opt-out service whether the customer's email has been successfully processed for opt-out such that the customer will no longer receive TA from the merchant.)
updating, by the at least one other Saas platform, a customer status of a customer record, wherein least one other Saas platform does not field a form to the customers for further consent for electronic communication or withdrawal from electronic communication; ([0021] The opt-out service can convert the customer's email into the format preferred by each of the merchants and provide the same to the merchants for processing. The merchants can report back to the opt-out service whether the customer's email has been successfully processed for opt-out such that the customer will no longer receive TA from the merchant. [0053] In one example process described in greater detail infra, after the opt-out is processed by an endpoint, the results can be displayed to the customer. For merchants that have successfully processed the opt-out request on their endpoints a success status can be shown.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include transmitting, by the synchronization module, the list of customers who have withdrawn consent for the electronic communication received from the first SaaS platform to at least one other SaaS platform and updating, by the at least one other Saas platform, a customer status of a customer record, wherein least one other Saas platform does not field a form to the customers for further consent for electronic communication or withdrawal from electronic communication as taught by Parsons with the customer communications consent method of Maselli in view of Williams in order to allow a user to opt-out of TA with any or all of the registered merchants ([0002]).
Maselli in view of Williams in view of Parsons teaches the limitations of claim 1. As per claim 2:
Maselli teaches:
wherein the first SaaS platform and the at least one other SaaS platform are located within a same network. (Fig. 1; [0029] As an option, for the case where the enterprise communications is to a large customer group, located over a large geographic area, a distributed number of regional information delivery services 120a and communication manager processors 122 may be networked together in order to reduce the bandwidth needed for distribution of the message. The networking is particularly effective when the enterprise(s) 110 provides to the information delivery service 120 the customer list, delivery channel 130 selections and message content in advance of the date that the message is due to be distributed. In this case all of the data conversions can be completed and distributed over the network to other regional information delivery services 120a, as required, at a lower bandwidth and with none of the communication managers 122 having to perform real time data message formatting, or experience heavy CPU loading.)
Maselli in view of Williams in view of Parsons teaches the limitations of claim 1. As per claim 4:
Maselli further teaches:
wherein the level of consent determines whether the list of customers that have authorized the electronic communication is transmitted to the at least one other SaaS platform, and wherein there is more than one other SaaS platform, determines which at least one other SaaS platform my receive the list of customers that have authorized the electronic communication. ([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).)
Maselli in view of Williams in view of Parsons teaches the limitations of claim 1. As per claim 6:
Examiner’s Comment: Regarding the method of claim 6, the limitations of “wherein when a customer only authorizes the first SaaS platform to send electronic communication, the synchronization module stores the authorization for the customer and transmits a change of status of a customer record from authorization for electronic communication to no authorization for electronic communication in the at least one other SaaS platform” has little to no patentable weight because it is optional language in a method claim. The phrasing of the limitations using the word “when” creates a scenario where the actual step does not have to occur because it is not positively recited (See MPEP 2111.04 I “Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure.”)
Maselli teaches:
wherein when a customer only authorizes the first SaaS platform to send electronic communication, the synchronization module stores the authorization for the customer and transmits a change of status of a customer record from authorization for electronic communication to no authorization for electronic communication in the at least one other SaaS platform. ([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).)
Maselli in view of Williams in view of Parsons teaches the limitations of claim 2. As per claim 7:
Maselli further teaches:
wherein the first Saas platform is any one of the SaaS platforms within the network, and any one of the SaaS platforms may transmit the list of customers that have authorized the electronic communication to the synchronization module synchronously or asynchronously. (Fig. 1, elements 112-115; [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 in view of Williams in view of Parsons teaches the limitations of claim 1. As per claim 9:
Parson further teaches:
further determining, by the synchronization module, whether a customer withdrew from the electronic communication; and changing the status of the customer record from authorization for electronic communication to no authorization for electronic communication. ([0020] The systems and methods herein provide a centralized location where customers can choose to opt-out of TA by members. Merchants can register their endpoints with a service provider that hosts an opt-out service. Merchants can specify details regarding their endpoints, such as preferred hashing algorithms, authorization tokens, flags, and other preferences. Users can select any or all of the merchants registered with the opt-out service and opt-out of TA by entering their email address or another similar customer identifier. That is, while email addresses have been disclosed as the means by which a customer can be identified, the present disclosure is not limited to only the use of email addresses. However, a hashed version of the customer's email address can be used as the identifier for associating offline and online data related to the customer and their devices, and to recognize the same customer on different websites or applications. [0021] The opt-out service can convert the customer's email into the format preferred by each of the merchants and provide the same to the merchants for processing. The merchants can report back to the opt-out service whether the customer's email has been successfully processed for opt-out such that the customer will no longer receive TA from the merchant. [0053] In one example process described in greater detail infra, after the opt-out is processed by an endpoint, the results can be displayed to the customer. For merchants that have successfully processed the opt-out request on their endpoints a success status can be shown.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include further determining, by the synchronization module, whether a customer withdrew from the electronic communication; and changing the status of the customer record from authorization for electronic communication to no authorization for electronic communication as taught by Parsons with the customer communications consent method of Maselli in view of Williams in order to allow a user to opt-out of TA with any or all of the registered merchants ([0002]).
Maselli in view of Williams in view of Parsons teaches the limitations of claim 1. As per claim 10:
Parsons further teaches:
further determining, by the synchronization module, whether at least one SaaS provider opted to receive customer consent changes, wherein the SaaS provider is comprised of at least one SaaS platform. ([0020] The systems and methods herein provide a centralized location where customers can choose to opt-out of TA by members. Merchants can register their endpoints with a service provider that hosts an opt-out service. Merchants can specify details regarding their endpoints, such as preferred hashing algorithms, authorization tokens, flags, and other preferences. Users can select any or all of the merchants registered with the opt-out service and opt-out of TA by entering their email address or another similar customer identifier. That is, while email addresses have been disclosed as the means by which a customer can be identified, the present disclosure is not limited to only the use of email addresses. However, a hashed version of the customer's email address can be used as the identifier for associating offline and online data related to the customer and their devices, and to recognize the same customer on different websites or applications. [0021] The opt-out service can convert the customer's email into the format preferred by each of the merchants and provide the same to the merchants for processing. The merchants can report back to the opt-out service whether the customer's email has been successfully processed for opt-out such that the customer will no longer receive TA from the merchant. [0053] In one example process described in greater detail infra, after the opt-out is processed by an endpoint, the results can be displayed to the customer. For merchants that have successfully processed the opt-out request on their endpoints a success status can be shown.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include further determining, by the synchronization module, whether at least one SaaS provider opted to receive customer consent changes, wherein the SaaS provider is comprised of at least one SaaS platform as taught by Parsons with the customer communications consent method of Maselli in view of Williams in order to allow a user to opt-out of TA with any or all of the registered merchants ([0002]).
Maselli in view of Williams in view of Parsons teaches the limitations of claim 10. As per claim 11:
Examiner’s Comment: Regarding the method of claim 11, the limitations of “wherein if the at least one SaaS provider opted in customer consent changes, the synchronization module sends a communication to the at least one SaaS provider to determine if a customer record exists in the at least one SaaS provider platforms.” has little to no patentable weight because it is optional language in a method claim. The phrasing of the limitations using the word “if” creates a scenario where the actual step does not have to occur because it is not positively recited (See MPEP 2111.04 I “Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure.”)
wherein if the at least one SaaS provider opted in customer consent changes, the synchronization module sends a communication to the at least one SaaS provider to determine if a customer record exists in the at least one SaaS provider platforms. (Prior art provided to promote compact prosecution in anticipation of correcting the claim language. see Walker et al (US 2004/0117261) – [0127] The POS controller 100 queries the frequent shopper database 422 in order to determine whether a record containing the customer identifier already exists (step 1810). A formal rejection citing Walker will be included once the claim language requires the step to actually occur.)
Maselli in view of Williams in view of Parsons teaches the limitations of claim 10. As per claim 12:
Maselli teaches:
wherein the levels of consent determine which SaaS platforms within the at least one SaaS provider receives the list of customers that have authorized the electronic communication. ([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).)
Maselli in view of Williams in view of Parsons teaches the limitations of claim 1. As per claim 14:
Examiner’s Comment: Regarding the method of claim 14, the limitations of “wherein when the synchronization module is in operation, the processor executes a software stored within the nonvolatile memory to communicate data to and from the nonvolatile memory and generally control operations of the synchronization module pursuant to the software” has little to no patentable weight because it is optional language in a method claim. The phrasing of the limitations using the word “when” creates a scenario where the actual step does not have to occur because it is not positively recited (See MPEP 2111.04 I “Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure.”)
Maselli further teaches:
wherein when the synchronization module is in operation, the processor executes a software stored within the nonvolatile memory to communicate data to and from the nonvolatile memory and generally control operations of the synchronization module pursuant to the software. ([0044] [0044] As known in the data processing and communications arts, a general-purpose computer typically comprises a central processor or other processing device, an internal communication bus, various types of memory or storage media (RAM, ROM, EEPROM, cache memory, disk drives etc.) for code and data storage, and one or more network interface cards or ports for communication purposes. The software functionalities involve programming, including executable code as well as associated stored data. The software code is executable by the general-purpose computer that functions as the control processor 170 and/or the associated terminal device. In operation, the code is stored within the general-purpose computer platform. At other times, however, the software may be stored at other locations and/or transported for loading into the appropriate general-purpose computer system. Execution of such code by a processor of the computer platform enables the platform to implement the methodology for tracking of mail items through a postal authority network with reference to a specific mail target, in essentially the manner performed in the implementations discussed and illustrated herein.)
Maselli in view of Williams in view of Parsons teaches the limitations of claim 1. As per claim 17:
Maselli teaches:
wherein the list of customers that have authorized the electronic communication includes an identification information for each customer on the list of customers and a level of consent for electronic communication associated with each customer. ([0034] n Item 1 of step 205, the customer contacts the information delivery service 120 by electronic means which includes but is not limited to a mobile device, computer interface, a tablet interface via network connection to a web site for the delivery service or as a backup, non-electronic mail or a phone call if so desired. A preferred enrollment access would be a web site, accessed by an internet enabled device. However, talking to a representative or filling out a form are some of the other options that may be offered. Item 2 initiates the data entry process by registering the customer's mobile phone number. The mobile phone number is entered first since all other account data is referenced to the mobile phone number. Next the customer 150 selects the enterprises 110 from the information delivery service 120 list of member enterprises (Item 3). These enterprises can be enterprises that the customer 150 already does business with and wants to use the information delivery service 120 as the communication link to the enterprise 110 or enterprises 110 the customer envisions doing business with. [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.)
Maselli in view of Williams in view of Parsons teaches the limitations of claim 1. As per claim 19:
Parsons teaches:
further transmitting, by the synchronization module, a list of customer order changes, wherein the order changes determines a change in the level of consent authorized by a customer. ([0020] The systems and methods herein provide a centralized location where customers can choose to opt-out of TA by members. Merchants can register their endpoints with a service provider that hosts an opt-out service. Merchants can specify details regarding their endpoints, such as preferred hashing algorithms, authorization tokens, flags, and other preferences. Users can select any or all of the merchants registered with the opt-out service and opt-out of TA by entering their email address or another similar customer identifier. That is, while email addresses have been disclosed as the means by which a customer can be identified, the present disclosure is not limited to only the use of email addresses. However, a hashed version of the customer's email address can be used as the identifier for associating offline and online data related to the customer and their devices, and to recognize the same customer on different websites or applications. [0021] The opt-out service can convert the customer's email into the format preferred by each of the merchants and provide the same to the merchants for processing. The merchants can report back to the opt-out service whether the customer's email has been successfully processed for opt-out such that the customer will no longer receive TA from the merchant. [0053] In one example process described in greater detail infra, after the opt-out is processed by an endpoint, the results can be displayed to the customer. For merchants that have successfully processed the opt-out request on their endpoints a success status can be shown.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include further transmitting, by the synchronization module, a list of customer order changes, wherein the order changes determines a change in the level of consent authorized by a customer as taught by Parsons with the customer communications consent method of Maselli in view of Williams in order to allow a user to opt-out of TA with any or all of the registered merchants ([0002]).
Claim(s) 3 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) in view of Parsons Freund et al (US 2023/0198769) hereafter “Parsons” in view of Gilman et al (US 2012/0271697)
Maselli in view of Williams in view of Parsons teaches the limitations of claim 1. As per claim 3:
Maselli in view of Williams in view of Parsons does not expressly teach further comprising connecting, by an application programming interface located within the synchronization module, the synchronization module to the network containing the first SaaS platform and the at least one other Saas platform.
Gilman teaches:
further comprising connecting, by an application programming interface located within the synchronization module, the synchronization module to the network containing the first SaaS platform and the at least one other Saas platform. ([0154] In another embodiment, step 730 can include revenue sharing and collection of commission revenue from offer publishing through internal and external customers. For example, step 730 can comprise selling access to a large distribution network to offer providers/distributors 102 who will have the convenience of using the offers API 603 to connect to a distribution network to distribute offers 301.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include further comprising connecting, by an application programming interface located within the synchronization module, the synchronization module to the network containing the first SaaS platform and the at least one other Saas platform as taught by Gilman with the customer communications consent method of Maselli in view of Williams in view of Parsons in order to access a large distribution network to offer providers/distributors ([0154]).
Claim(s) 5 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) in view of Parsons Freund et al (US 2023/0198769) hereafter “Parsons” in view of Brodsky et al (US 2008/0177590)
Maselli in view of Williams in view of Parsons teaches the limitations of claim 1. As per claim 5:
Maselli in view of Williams in view of Parsons does not expressly teach wherein the list of customers that have authorized the electronic communication is transmitted to the at least one other Saas platform asynchronously.
Brodsky teaches:
wherein the list of customers that have authorized the electronic communication is transmitted to the at least one other Saas platform asynchronously. ([0028] The website asynchronously sends a list of models that are available for that make and year to the consumers web page during activity Update Model List 226.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include sending a list asynchronously with the customer consent communication lists of Maselli in view of Williams in view of Parsons in order to provide faster application response times, higher system resilience, and better resource management.
Claim(s) 8 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) in view of Parsons Freund et al (US 2023/0198769) hereafter “Parsons” in view of Druckenmiller et al (US 6,167,435)
Maselli in view of Williams in view of Parsons teaches the limitations of claim 1. As per claim 8:
Maselli in view of Williams in view of Parsons does not expressly teach further requesting, by the synchronization module, a second authorization from customers on the list of customers that have authorized the electronic communication from the first SaaS platform.
Druckenmiller teaches:
further requesting, by the synchronization module, a second authorization from customers on the list of customers that have authorized the electronic communication from the first SaaS platform. ([C1L66-C2L19] These and other objects are provided by a method and system in which an interest-based electronic address mailing list is generated by a Double Opt-in.TM. method and system, as described herein. According to the invention, potential subscribers access an electronic bulletin board or Internet site and voluntarily subscribe to one or more mailing lists by entering their e-mail address and selecting one or more subject areas of interest. Once a subscription request is received, a unique alphanumeric token is generated and associated with the e-mail address. The subscription request is then is added to a list of pending subscriptions. Next, an automated verification message is generated and sent to the entered e-mail address to confirm the subscription. The message indicates that a subscription request has been received and contains the unique token. The subscription is not considered valid until confirmed by a response that contains both the e-mail address and the associated unique token. Preferably, the response is made via an e-mail reply to the verification message or access to a designated Internet site which accepts the verification information from the user.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include further requesting, by the synchronization module, a second authorization from customers on the list of customers that have authorized the electronic communication from the first SaaS platform as taught by Druckenmiller with the customer communications consent method of Maselli in view of Williams in view of Parsons in order to not require an individual who has been subscribed against their will to take any action to be removed from the mailing list ([C1L60-63]).
Claim(s) 13 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) in view of Parsons Freund et al (US 2023/0198769) hereafter “Parsons” in view of Stibel (US 2012/0323695)
Maselli in view of Williams in view of Parsons teaches the limitations of claim 10. As per claim 13:
Maselli teaches:
wherein the customer contact information is updated and stored in the synchronization module. ([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 in view of Williams in view of Parsons does not expressly teach further transmitting, by the synchronization module, customer contact information to the at least one other SaaS provider.
Stibel teaches:
further transmitting, by the synchronization module, customer contact information to the at least one other SaaS provider, ([0046] In some embodiments, the set of leads includes leads that the business is willing to share with other businesses. Leads typically consist of existing clients of the business, though they may also include persons on a mailing list or subscription service of the business, persons that have requested information from the business, persons or other business that provide goods or other services to the business, or persons that the business has information on otherwise. For In some embodiments, certain disclosures may have to be made to persons before they can be entered as leads. This may include providing a disclaimer to business clients that client information provided to the business may be used for marketing purposes by the business and its network partners. Alternatively, clients that wish to sign up for special promotions or other marketing materials of a business may affirm that they are willing to have their information shared with network partners of the business. These disclosures may be optional or required depending on compliance requirements of the jurisdiction in which the lead generation platform operates. [0047] In some embodiments, entering a lead includes providing contact information in order for other business participants to contact the lead. The provided contact information may include one or more of an email address for receiving marketing materials via, a telephone number for receiving marketing materials via SMS messaging, text messaging, or voice messages, a Universal Resource Locator (URL) or social network profile for social network messaging such as Twitter tweets and Facebook wall posts, or a mailing address for receiving print marketing materials. It should be apparent that the lead generation platform can support other forms of contact information in addition to those enumerated above in order to disseminate marketing materials through other transfer mediums.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include further transmitting, by the synchronization module, customer contact information to the at least one other SaaS provider as taught by Stibel with the customer communications consent method of Maselli in view of Williams in view of Parsons in order to provide more effective marketing through a lead generation platform that allows businesses to target their primary demographic, obtain a high value-to-volume ratio for their marketing efforts, and retain clients that are identified through the marketing campaign ([0010]).
Claim(s) 15 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) in view of Parsons Freund et al (US 2023/0198769) hereafter “Parsons” in view of Friborg JR (US 2015/0363831)
Maselli in view of Williams in view of Parsons teaches the limitations of claim 1. As per claim 15:
Friborg teaches:
further comprising transmitting, by the first SaaS platform a welcome message to a customer who consents to electronic communication, wherein the welcome message acknowledges the at least one other SaaS platform that will receive the customer list from the synchronization module. ([0018] Accordingly, the text messaging system may create an opt-in record corresponding to the identified phone number. A confirmation text message may be provided to the user at the completion of creating the opt-in record, wherein the confirmation text message states the title of the text message program, the frequency of alerts, whether data rates and/or messaging rates apply, and/or one or more commands. This way the user may be informed about the subscription.)
Friborg teaches a user opting in to receive communications and receiving a welcome message. Maselli teaches allowing a user to sign up to receive communications from multiple merchants ([0035]) as discussed above. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to combine the welcome message of Fiborg for when a user signs up to receive communications from a single merchant with the ability to sign up to receive communications from multiple merchants of Miselli to yield the predictable result of a welcome message that indicates the multiple merchants the user has signed up to receive communications from. This is the use of a known technique (providing welcome messages when a user signs up for a service) to improve similar methods (signing up for multiple services) in the same way (a welcome message indicating the services signed up for).
Claim(s) 16 and 18 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) in view of Parsons Freund et al (US 2023/0198769) hereafter “Parsons” in view of Whipple Jr (US 12,4111,981)
Maselli in view of Williams in view of Parsons teaches the limitations of claim 1. As per claim 16:
Maselli in view of Williams in view of Parsons does not expressly teach further storing, by the synchronization module, at least one first party site-owner declaration.
Whipple teaches:
further storing, by the synchronization module, at least one first party site-owner declaration. ([C2L30-C3L11] For example, the present technology can optionally store approval of the party's request to communicate with the entity, allowing the party to initiate future communications with the entity by logging into the communication network, or by otherwise commencing communications through the communication network. The memory stores a permissions module comprising instructions that, when executed by the processor in response to receiving a request to communicate with the member submitted by an Initiator, cause the processor to: (i) conduct a search of the data store to identify the member; (ii) in response to identifying the member, transmit an approval request over a communication network to be reviewed by the member; (iii) receive an approval submitted by the member granting the Initiator permission to communicate with the member; and (iv) modify the data structure to store the permission of the Initiator to communicate with the member. A routing module is provided to the system, and includes instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: (i) determine that the permission of the Initiator to communicate with the member is stored by the data structure in response to an attempt by the Initiator to communicate with the member, and (ii) route a communication from the Initiator to the member using the protected contact information specific to the member stored by the data structure, without revealing the protected contact information to the Initiator.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include further storing, by the synchronization module, at least one first party site-owner declaration as taught by Whipple with the customer communications consent method of Maselli in view of Williams in view of Parsons in order to allow a party to initiate future communications with the entity by logging into the communication network ([C2L30-C3L11]).
Maselli in view of Williams in view of Parsons teaches the limitations of claim 1. As per claim 18:
Maselli in view of Williams in view of Parsons does not expressly teach further transmitting, by the synchronization module, a first party site-owner declaration to the at least one other SaaS platform.
Whipple teaches:
further transmitting, by the synchronization module, a first party site-owner declaration to the at least one other SaaS platform. ([C2L30-C3L11] For example, the present technology can optionally store approval of the party's request to communicate with the entity, allowing the party to initiate future communications with the entity by logging into the communication network, or by otherwise commencing communications through the communication network. The memory stores a permissions module comprising instructions that, when executed by the processor in response to receiving a request to communicate with the member submitted by an Initiator, cause the processor to: (i) conduct a search of the data store to identify the member; (ii) in response to identifying the member, transmit an approval request over a communication network to be reviewed by the member; (iii) receive an approval submitted by the member granting the Initiator permission to communicate with the member; and (iv) modify the data structure to store the permission of the Initiator to communicate with the member. A routing module is provided to the system, and includes instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: (i) determine that the permission of the Initiator to communicate with the member is stored by the data structure in response to an attempt by the Initiator to communicate with the member, and (ii) route a communication from the Initiator to the member using the protected contact information specific to the member stored by the data structure, without revealing the protected contact information to the Initiator.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include further transmitting, by the synchronization module, a first party site-owner declaration to the at least one other SaaS platform as taught by Whipple with the customer communications consent method of Maselli in view of Williams in view of Parsons in order to allow a party to initiate future communications with the entity by logging into the communication network ([C2L30-C3L11]).
Response to Arguments
The examiner has considered but does not find persuasive applicant’s arguments regarding rejections under 35 USC 101. With regard to reciting an abstract idea, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are directed to providing consent for sending the user marketing communications. The example cited by the applicant has nothing in common with the present claims what so ever. The present claims do little more than send lists between the parties and store information. The claims provide no improvements to technology or a technical field. The mere high-level recitation of a processor and memory does not go beyond the “apply it” level of implementation as discussed above. As a result, such rejection has been maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with regard to rejections under 35 USC 103 are moot in light of new grounds of rejection which have been necessitated by amendment. With regard to Williams, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Williams clearly teaches passing consent permission from a first entity to a second entity. This in combination with Messelli teaches the claimed limitations.
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 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 3621
/CHRISTOPHER STROUD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621
Prosecution Insights