Patent Application 18111909 - SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR TRADING PRIVACY INFORMATION

Title: SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR TRADING PRIVACY INFORMATION

Application Information

Invention Title: SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR TRADING PRIVACY INFORMATION
Application Number: 18111909
Submission Date: 2025-04-07T00:00:00.000Z
Effective Filing Date: 2023-02-21T00:00:00.000Z
Filing Date: 2023-02-21T00:00:00.000Z
National Class: 705
National Sub-Class: 007350
Examiner Employee Number: 91119
Art Unit: 3628
Tech Center: 3600

Rejection Summary

102 Rejections: 0
103 Rejections: 1

Cited Patents

The following patents were cited in the rejection:

US 0187996🔗

Office Action Text

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 the Claims
Claims 1-3 were previously pending and subject to a non-final office action mailed 09/18/2024. Claims 1 and 3 were amended; claim 2 was cancelled, and no claim was added in a reply filed 12/17/2024. Therefore claims 1 and 3 are currently pending and subject to the final office action below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/17/2025 in regards to section 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims are patent eligible because “the claimed invention improves computer security because the implementation of blockchain technology provides enhanced security for storing privacy information, the distributed storage across blockchain networks prevents unauthorized access and tampering, and the system implements specific technical mechanisms for secure data transmission between parties.” (Remarks p. 7). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner respectfully argues that the claims are not patent eligible because the blockchain technology recited in the claims is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to simple instructions of applying the abstract idea in a computer environment. The blockchain technology recited in the claims is used in its generic fashion and does not improve the computer itself or the technology nor do the claims improve the blockchain technology itself. Therefore, the claims are merely benefiting from the inherent efficiency and security advantages that come along with blockchain technology. As such, the blockchain technology recited in the claims fails to provide an improvement and integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Applicant argues that “the claimed invention provides technical solution to technical problem because the instant claims address the technical problem of securely managing and trading privacy information while maintaining user control, the blockchain-based solution provides technical improvements over conventional centralized database systems, and the system enables secure, verifiable, and transparent privacy information transactions” (Remarks p. 8). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As argues above, the claims do not provide a technical solution to a technical problem but they simply benefit from the inherent efficiency and decentralized nature of the blockchain technology. In other words, the claims are simply applying the abstract idea on a generic blockchain technology and do not provide an improvement to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Applicant further argues that “the Federal Circuit has held that improvements to technology or technical fields can demonstrate integration into a practical application (See MPEP 2106.05(a)). Here, the amended claims clearly improve computer functionality and data security through implementation of blockchain technology for enhanced security, distributed storage of privacy information, secure transmission mechanisms, direct control over privacy information sharing, and real-time processing of privacy information transactions.” (Remarks p. 8).
As argues above, the claims do not provide an improvement but they simply benefit from the inherent efficiency and decentralized nature of the blockchain technology. In other words, the claims are simply applying the abstract idea on a generic blockchain technology and do not provide an improvement to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As such the claims are not patent eligible.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 103 arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. However, Clauss discloses "the information provider directly selects and limits the scope of privacy information to be sold based on reward amounts displayed according to types and number of privacy information through the purchase information list" because Clauss discloses choosing offers from information purchasers that states which information they are buying and the reward they are offering for it. The information provider is able to select as many offers, they would like from the offer list (purchase information list). Therefore, Clauss discloses the limitation.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks p. 7, filed 12/17/2024, with respect to 112b rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112b rejection of claims 1-2 has been withdrawn.
No arguments were presented for 112(f) interpretation. Therefore, 112(f) interpretation is pending.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.

The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.

The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “privacy information collection unit”, “a purchase information collection unit”, “a list generation unit”, “a scope setting unit”, “a reward amount calculation unit” and “storage unit” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1/3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “receiving and collecting the privacy information of an information provider from an information provider (B) receiving and collecting a pre-set reward information according to a scope of the promotion information and privacy information of the information purchaser, which uses the collected privacy information from the information purchaser; (C) generating the purchase information list by listing the reward information determined according to a content of the promotion information and a scope of privacy information for each information purchaser by using the collected promotion information and reward information; (D) setting a scope of providing the information purchaser and privacy information selected by the information provider, through the purchase information list provided to the information provider; and (E) calculating the reward amount paid from the related information purchaser to the information provider based on the scope of privacy information by the selected information purchaser and information purchaser”
The limitations above, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers selling of private information which is a method of organizing a human activity. That is, the method allows for fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim a privacy information collection unit, a purchase information collection unit, a list generation unit, a scope setting unit, information provider terminal and a reward amount calculation unit (claim 1) and additionally information purchaser terminal (claim 3). Each of the additional limitations is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements, alone or in combination, are nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception on a general computer.
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 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clauss (US 10832299) in view of Matthews (US 2018/0187996) in view of Trevor Clohessy, “Blockchain and Distributed Ledger Technology Use cases”, published by Springer in 2020, hereinafter “Trevor”.
As per claim 1/3, Clauss discloses a system/method for trading privacy information, comprising:
a computing device comprising one or more units being configured and executed by a processor using algorithm, the algorithm which when executed, causing the processor to perform the one or more units, the one or more units comprising (col. 25:58 to col. 26:17):
a privacy information collection unit that receives and collects the privacy information input from an information provider terminal (col.11:25-43, col. 12:23-37);
a purchase information collection unit that receives and collects pre-set reward information input from the information provider terminal according to a promotion information of an information purchaser using the privacy information and a scope of the privacy information (col. 19:4-21, fig. 2-5, the user is provided with offers setting the scope of the information purchased and the rewards for the information);
a list generation unit that generates a purchase information list by listing reward information determined according to promotion information content and the scope of privacy information for each information purchaser using the collected promotion information and reward information (fig. 2, col. 1:2-16, col. 14: 47-63);
a scope setting unit that sets a scope of providing the information purchaser and privacy information, wherein the information provider directly selects and limits the scope of privacy information to be sold based on reward amounts displayed according to types and number of privacy information through the purchase information list provided to the information provider terminal, such that the privacy information is used only by legitimate information purchasers selected by the information provider within a consented scope (fig. 2, col. 14:2-16, 47-63, col. 18:51 to col. 19:20, fig. 2-9, by selecting the offer, the user is automatically and directly selecting the scope of the information they are willing to share with the information purchaser. Furthermore, when the user searches for offers they select the offers according to the scope of the search and then approve or accept the offers that are matching said scope of search).
the purchase information list displays reward information set according to privacy information usage scope set by the information purchaser and includes selection windows configured to allow the information provider to select one or more of the displayed reward information, higher reward amounts are paid to the information provider as more selection windows configured for each information purchaser are selected, different reward amounts are set according to types of privacy information corresponding to the selection windows, and the purchase information list including listed promotion information comprising advertisements, events, loans, and commodity advertisements collected by the purchase information collection unit is provided to the information provider terminal through a transceiver (fig. 2-9, col. 6: 14-24, col. 11:45-50, col. 14:2-16, 47-63, col. 18:51 to col. 19:20, the user is offered a list of promotions from data purchasers. The promotions detail the data the data purchaser would like to acquire and the reward for it. The more promotions the user accepts the higher the pay is for the user as reflected in the figures. Clauss discloses that data purchasers are third party vendors such as ride hailing services which Examiner interpret as commodity, third party advertisers, or an insurance provider who might be offering home or vehicle loans).
However, Clauss does not disclose but Matthews discloses a reward amount calculation unit that calculates the reward amount paid from corresponding information purchaser to the information provider based on the information purchasers and privacy information scope of each information purchaser selected in the scope setting unit (paragraph 32-34, the reward is calculated in regards to how much information the user discloses to the information purchaser).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitations above as taught by Matthews in the teaching of Clauss, in order generate for display, to the user, an actual promotion offer based on the selected subset of profile characteristics (please see Matthews, abstract).
However, Clauss does not disclose but Trevor discloses a storage unit that distributes and stores the privacy information in blocks using blockchain technology to enhance security of the privacy information and wherein the privacy information is distributed and stored in blocks using the blockchain technology, (page 155-156, “The market provides a Decentralized and Auditable Data Storage System, where personal data is stored on the client side, and the blockchain provides references to the data, but not the data themselves. Each Seller hosts its own data, which is encrypted, on their devices, such as mobile phones or personal computers. Data transfers from Sellers to Buyers are performed off-chain. The blockchain stores hashes of the Sellers’ Data, which serve as references to the full data set for validation purposes. The unencrypted data can be required by the Notary in case of an audit. Wibson also implements an Augmented Chain that joins data stored off-chain plus and the references (i.e., hashes of the data) on-chain. This Augmented Chain contains all the data of the system, and is always accessible to the Notary in case of an audit. If the Seller fails to provide his/her data to the Notary, in case of a conflict or in case of being audited, the Notary may arbitrate against the Seller. Potential Buyers communicate their data requirements on-chain by placing Data
Orders on the blockchain. The Buyer publishes on the blockchain the price offered for each Data Order. After screening the Data Responses, the Buyer publishes on the blockchain the selected Sellers, the price paid, and the hashes of the data. The initial implementation of the payment system uses Ethereum smart-contracts (Buterin 2014; Wood 2014) and an ERC20 token (Vogelsteller and Buterin 2015) implemented with the Zeppelin Standard Token. A reward system provides mechanisms and incentives to certify participants, verify that data is trustworthy, and incentivize honest marketplace participant behavior. In the on-chain incentive system Notaries audit transactions by signing them on the blockchain).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitations above as taught by Trevor in the teaching of Clauss, in order to provide a way for individuals to control and monetize their personal information in a trusted environment based on blockchain (please see Trevor, page 149, abstract).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 OMAR ZEROUAL whose telephone number is (571)272-7255. The examiner can normally be reached Flex schedule.
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, Resha Desai can be reached on (571) 270-7792. 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.

OMAR . ZEROUAL
Examiner
Art Unit 3628

/OMAR ZEROUAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628