DETAILED ACTION
1. This office action is in response to application 19/209,237 filed on 5/15/2025. The preliminary amendment filed on 7/21/2025 has been entered. Accordingly, claims 29-45 are pending in this office action.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 29-45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over .US 2018/0137179 (hereinafter Kawanabe) in view of US 2019/0332807 (hereinafter LaFever).
As for claim 29 Kawanabe discloses: A method, comprising: accessing, by a logic layer processor (See paragraphs 0026 and 0115 note the system can be hosted by a system comprising one or more processors), a user-specific profile map data structure of a user, said user-specific profile map data structure having been iteratively populated with a plurality of data elements of personal identifiable information (PII) of the user from a plurality of electronic resources (See paragraph 0075 note the system will iteratively populate/update user personal identifiable information);
Kawanabe does not explicitly disclose: generating, from said user-specific profile map data structure, a structured knowledge base representative of the user, wherein the structured knowledge base comprises a plurality of interconnected nodes; and providing a set of instructions based on an analysis of said structured knowledge base to cause a remote computing device to execute a modification of a software application. LaFever however discloses: generating, from said user-specific profile map data structure, a structured knowledge base representative of the user, wherein the structured knowledge base comprises a plurality of interconnected nodes (See paragraphs 0622-0624 and paragraphs 1006-1007 note blockchain nodes are interconnected and distributed); and providing a set of instructions based on an analysis of said structured knowledge base to cause a remote computing device to execute a modification of a software application (See paragraphs 0042, 0055, 0079 and 0382 note the system provides for abstraction that will modify relevant attributes based on the privacy). It would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill in the pertinent at the time the instantly claimed invention was filed to have incorporated the teaching of LaFever into the system of Kawanabe. The modification would have been obvious because the two references are concerned with the solution to problem of storing and controlling access to personal identifiable information (See LaFever and Kawanabe abstract), therefore there is an implicit motivation to combine these references (i.e. motivation from the references themselves). In other words, the ordinary skilled artisan, during his/her quest for a solution to the cited problem, would look to the cited references at the time the invention was made. Consequently, the ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the cited references since LaFever’s teaching would enable users of the Kawanabe system to have more efficient processing of private information.
As for claim 30 the rejection of claim 29 is incorporated and further LaFever discloses: wherein providing the set of instructions comprises transmitting the set of instructions to the remote computing device (See paragraphs 0078 and 0385 note the instructions can be transmitted or the privacy client can reside on the same machine).
As for claim 31 the rejection of claim 29 is incorporated and further LaFever discloses: wherein providing the set of instructions comprises making the set of instructions available for retrieval by the remote computing device (See paragraphs 0385, 0411 and 0529 note the system makes the interface, instructions and data available for retrieval by user devices).
As for claim 32 the rejection of claim 29 is incorporated and further LaFever discloses: wherein the modification comprises selecting a personalized content item for display (See paragraphs 0007-0010 note the system personalizes offers while maintaining anonymity).
As for claim 33 the rejection of claim 29 is incorporated and further LaFever discloses: wherein the modification comprises generating a user-specific dashboard that displays a prioritized list of resource providers (See paragraphs 0448-0452 note trusted partners can be filter and listed).
As for claim 34 the rejection of claim 29 is incorporated and further LaFever discloses: wherein the software application is a video game, and the modification comprises altering a game factor to personalize a gaming experience (See paragraphs 0359 and 0648 note the system will operated within the context of online multiplayer video games).
As for claim 35 the rejection of claim 34 is incorporated and further LaFever discloses: aggregating game data from a first game platform and a second, different game platform (See paragraphs 0017 0032, 0148 note the system is designed to share data from platform to platform while maintaining the anonymity of users).
As for claim 36 Kawanabe disclose: A method comprising: maintaining, by a logic layer processor (See paragraphs 0026 and 0115 note the system can be hosted by a system comprising one or more processors), a knowledge base representing verified parameters of a user derived from a plurality of electronic resources (See paragraph 0041 note the verification module will verify the parameters used within the system).
Kawanabe does not explicitly disclose: receiving, from a third-party Artificial Intelligence agent, a query related to the user; in response to the query, provide a contextual data set from the knowledge base to the third- party Artificial Intelligence agent; and thereby causing the third-party Artificial Intelligence agent to generate a grounded, fact-based output responsive to the query.
LaFever however discloses: receiving, from a third-party Artificial Intelligence agent, a query related to the user (See paragraphs 0573-0577 note the system receives request from trusted third-parties and provides the anonymized data in response to the query);
in response to the query, provide a contextual data set from the knowledge base to the third- party Artificial Intelligence agent; and thereby causing the third-party Artificial Intelligence agent to generate a grounded, fact-based output responsive to the query (See paragraphs 0031, 0443 note by using different sources and validating the information while withholding PII the system can ensure the information is fact-based). It would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill in the pertinent at the time the instantly claimed invention was filed to have incorporated the teaching of LaFever into the system of Kawanabe. The modification would have been obvious because the two references are concerned with the solution to problem of storing and controlling access to personal identifiable information (See LaFever and Kawanabe abstract), therefore there is an implicit motivation to combine these references (i.e. motivation from the references themselves). In other words, the ordinary skilled artisan, during his/her quest for a solution to the cited problem, would look to the cited references at the time the invention was made. Consequently, the ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the cited references since LaFever’s teaching would enable users of the Kawanabe system to have more efficient processing of private information.
As for claim 37 the rejection of claim 36 is incorporated and further LaFever discloses: wherein the third-party Artificial Intelligence agent is a large language model, and the grounded, fact-based output is configured to reduce a hallucination by the large language model. (See paragraphs 0515-0519 note the language model is based on the language used within the system to avoid other user inferring/guessing/hallucinating data that is masked).
As for claim 38 the rejection of claim 36 is incorporated and further LaFever discloses: wherein the knowledge base serves as a personal grounding 38. layer for a plurality of different third-party Artificial Intelligence agents (See paragraphs 0593 and 0594 note the information must be protected by default and masked data represents the base layer of information with more trusted sources gaining access to more information).
Claims 39-44 are system claims substantially corresponding to the method of claims 29-35 and are thus rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claims 29-35.
Claim 45 is a system claim substantially corresponding to the method of claim 36 and is thus rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 36.
Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIYAH STONE HARPER whose telephone number is (571)272-0759. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 10:00 am - 6:00 pm.
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, Sanjiv Shah can be reached on (571) 272-4098. 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.
/Eliyah S. Harper/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2166 February 3, 2026