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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
I. 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.
II. CLAIMS 1-5, 10-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHEPHERD et al (US 2014/0283142) in view of CHILDRESS et al (USPN 12,299,164).
Per claim 1, SHEPHERD et al teach a system for managing user data privacy, the system comprising:
a computer with one or more processor and memory, wherein the computer executes computer-readable instructions (paras 0393, 0398-399); and
a network connection operatively connecting at least one user device to the computer; wherein, upon execution of the computer-readable instructions (paras 0459-461), the computer is configured to:
initiate providing, via a graphical user interface of the at least one user device, a user software application to a user for installation on the at least one user device, wherein the at least one user device is configured to wirelessly communicate with the computer via the user software application (paras 0387-388, 0396-397, 0406—client device browses applications to download for installation from the host server; paras 0125, 0348-349, 0450—graphical user interface controls user interaction components with available applications; paras 0296, 0300—wireless network communication option from the device menu);
initiate providing, via the graphical user interface of the at least one user device, a data privacy application to a user, wherein the at least one user device is configured to wirelessly communicate with the computer via the data privacy application (paras 0330, 0336, 0338, 0340, 0448—providing the privacy tools implemented as a standalone application; paras 0296, 0300—wireless network communication option from the device menu);
receive, via the user software application installed on the at least one user device, user data comprising personal information of the user (paras 0223, 0230, 0232—accessing user data associated with a web browser, private user data); and
receive, via the data privacy application, at least one preference related to the user data, wherein the at least one preference is at least one data sharing preference (paras 0340-341, 0355, 0377-384—user selects and chooses one or more applications to share).
SHEPHERD et al teach the system of claim 1, as applied above, while teaching preventing access and restricting sharing of application (paras 0240, 0247, 0296, 0338); yet fail to explicitly teach the limitation “wherein the at least one preference is at least one data sharing preference including: an opt out of automatic decision making; an opt out of affiliate sharing, and/or an opt out of third-party sharing”. However, CHILDRESS et al teach a permission program that processes applications queued for installation based on the user’s election, where a user can opt-in or opt-out of registering the user’s device, opt-out of transferring sensitive data to a secure location in compliance with GDPR regulations or allow automatic installation vs forced installation (col.4 lines 38-63, col.5 lines 15-31 and 50-60, col.6 lines 23-44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention was made to combine the teachings of SHEPHERD et al with CHILDRESS et al for the purpose of provisioning user preferences allowing the user to opt-out of automatic decision making, affiliate sharing or third-party sharing, which is are well-known provisions given to users when installing/downloading applications to control access of the user’s device and personal data.
Claim 10 contains limitations that are substantially equivalent to the claim limitations of claim 1, and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Per claim 2, SHEPHERD et al with CHILDRESS et al teach the system of Claim 1, SHEPHERD et al further teach wherein, upon execution of the computer-readable instructions, the computer is further configured to store the at least one preference in at least one database of the system (paras 0230, 0249—data stores for storing user files; CHILDRESS et al: col.7 lines 23-37, col.7 line 60-col.8 line 10, col.8 lines 23-52, col.10 lines 13-67—database storing sensitive user data).
Claim 11 contains limitations that are substantially equivalent to the claim limitations of claim 2, and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Per claim 3, SHEPHERD et al with CHILDRESS et al teach the system of Claim 1, SHEPHERD et al further teach wherein the at least one preference varies depending on whether the user is one of an authenticated user and an unauthenticated user (paras 0151, 0157, 0178, 0371-376—user authentication to authorize access to the device; CHILDRESS et al: col.2 lines 39-57, col.3 lines 15-46—personal data security including protection against unauthorized access).
Claim 12 contains limitations that are substantially equivalent to the claim limitations of claim 3, and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Per claim 4, SHEPHERD et al with CHILDRESS et al teach the system of Claim 1, SHEPHERD et al further teach wherein, upon execution of the computer-readable instructions, the computer is further configured to provide the at least one preference to at least one application separate from the data privacy application (paras 0330, 0336, 0338, 0349—privacy tools provide privacy settings that list different applications that contain private information and should be protection; CHILDRESS et al: col.3 lines 15-33, col.4 line 56-col.5 line 5, col.6 lines 4-30—privacy policies and authorizations that an application requires and creates an application approval list for any sensitive data stores).
Claim 13 contains limitations that are substantially equivalent to the claim limitations of claim 4, and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Per claim 5, SHEPHERD et al with CHILDRESS et al teach the system of Claim 1, SHEPHERD et al further teach wherein, upon execution of the computer-readable instructions, the computer is further configured to filter the user data based upon the at least one preference (paras 0199, 0222, 0254, 0269, 0272-274—device performing filtering operations, allowing the user access to filtered data).
Claim 14 contains limitations that are substantially equivalent to the claim limitations of claim 5, and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Per claim 16, SHEPHERD et al with CHILDRESS et al teach the method of Claim 14, SHEPHERD et al further teach wherein the filtering of the user data deletes the personal information of the user from the user data (paras 0250, 0274, 0278, 0282, 0355—access permissions include delete permissions and deleting access).
III. CLAIMS 6-9, 15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHEPHERD et al (US 2014/0283142) in view of CHILDRESS et al (USPN 12,299,164) and HOTCHKIES et al (USPN 12,321,497).
Per claim 6, SHEPHERD et al with CHILDRESS et al teach the system of Claim 5, SHEPHERD et al further teach the system having a filtering operation of data provided to applications operable on the mobile device, applications associated with corresponding services (paras 0247, 0254, 0269, 0272-274), yet fail to explicitly teach the claim limitation “wherein a filtered user data is provided to a marketing module”. HOTCHKIES et al teach sharing user data with service providers that include payment and marketing services for receiving marketing campaigns (col.2 line 22-col.3 line 20, col.11 line 57-col.12 line 44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention was made to combine the teachings of SHEPHERD et al with CHILDRESS et al and HOTCHKIES et al for the purpose of provisioning filtered user data to a marketing module, which is a well-known technique used in the art allowing selected user data to be shared with certain marketing services to receive marketing campaign and promotional content.
Claim 15 contains limitations that are substantially equivalent to the claim limitations of claim 6, and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Per claim 7, SHEPHERD et al with CHILDRESS et al teach the system of Claim 1, SHEPHERD et al further teach applications associated with corresponding services, third-party applications using contacts service based on user’s access preferences (paras 0240-242, 0247), yet fail to explicitly teach the claim limitation “wherein, upon execution of the computer-readable instructions, the computer is further configured to filter a marketing file of the user data based upon the at least one preference”. HOTCHKIES et al teach a user profile including customer/user preferences for sharing user data with service providers that include and marketing services for receiving marketing campaigns (col.8 lines 18-43, col.12 line 63-col.13 line 25, col.45 lines 6-38).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention was made to combine the teachings of SHEPHERD et al with CHILDRESS et al and HOTCHKIES et al for the purpose of provisioning filtered user data to a marketing module based on user preferences, which is a well-known technique used in the art allowing selected user data to be shared with certain marketing services to receive marketing campaign and promotional content.
Claim 17 contains limitations that are substantially equivalent to the claim limitations of claim 7, and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Per claim 8, SHEPHERD et al with CHILDRESS et al and HOTCHKIES et al teach the system of Claim 7, HOTCHKIES et al further teach wherein the filtered marketing file of the user data is provided to a marketing module (col.2 line 22-col.3 line 32—authorizing views to preserve privacy and to securely share user data between service providers, such as a payment service and a marketing service).
Claim 18 contains limitations that are substantially equivalent to the claim limitations of claim 8, and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Per claim 9, SHEPHERD et al with CHILDRESS et al and HOTCHKIES et al teach the system of Claim 7, HOTCHKIES et al further teach wherein the filtered marketing file is used by at least one agent when distributing marketing materials (col.3 lines 4-54—access of user data used by a partner when sharing marketing/promotional content).
Claim 20 contains limitations that are substantially equivalent to the claim limitations of claim 9, and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Per claim 19, SHEPHERD et al with CHILDRESS et al and HOTCHKIES et al teach the method of Claim 17, HOTCHKIES et al further teach wherein the filtering of the marketing file deletes the personal information of the user from the marketing file of the user data (col.17 lines 41-54—deleting user data based on rules and permissions).
Conclusion
IV. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: USPN 11948219; US 20230177206
V. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to whose telephone number is (571) 272-3888. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 10am-7pm.
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, Kamal Divecha can be reached on 571-272-5863. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/KRISTIE D SHINGLES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2453
Prosecution Insights