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 .
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claims 1, 13, and 14
Claim 1 recites “An information processing system…” which is a machine. Claim 13 recites “A method…” which is a series of steps and are therefore a process. Claim 14 recites “A non-transitory computer readable medium…” which is a manufacture.
Independent claims 1, 13, and 14 recite limitations of:
acquiring…
display…
Claims 1, 13, and 14 recite the limitations of “acquiring…” which are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a processor, a computer, a non-transitory computer readable medium; nothing in the claim elements preclude the step from practically being performed in a human mind.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls withing the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations “displaying…” are recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
The processor, a computer, and a non-transitory computer readable medium are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The Dependent claims 2-12 recite additional limitations of:
specifying…
Claims 2-12 recite the limitations of “specifying…” which are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a processor, a computer, a non-transitory computer readable medium; nothing in the claim elements preclude the step from practically being performed in a human mind.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls withing the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion).
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 2-12 recite no additional elements.
The processor, a computer, a non-transitory computer readable medium are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-11 and 13-14 with an earliest effective filing date of 8/23/22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakazato (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0314099 published on 10/1/20 as cited on IDS).
With respect to claim 1, the Nakazato reference teaches an information processing system comprising one or more processors configured to:
acquire correlation information that is information on correlation between user accounts of a user and use sites that have been previously used by the user and that indicates which account, among the user accounts, was used by the user to use the use sites (the connection history information holding unit contains the connection history of the user using the linked account and information on the linked site [paragraph 33]); and
cause a display section to perform display about a connection target site, to which the user provides an instruction to connect, and display based on the correlation information (a login screen is generated to enable a user to use a linked account to login [paragraphs 43, 50, & 51 and Figure 5]).
With respect to claim 2, the Nakazato reference teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as described above. In addition, the Nakazato reference teaches that the one or more processors are configured to: specify, among the user accounts, an account that is usable for the connection target site (linked sites are determined and attributes of linked accounts are compared to determine linked accounts for login [paragraph 43]); and cause the display section to perform display that presents the usable account, as the display about the connection target site, and the display based on the correlation information (the linked accounts are displayed for login [paragraphs 43 and 45-47]).
With respect to claim 3, the Nakazato reference teaches all of the limitations of claim 2 as described above. In addition, the Nakazato reference teaches that the one or more processors are configured to specify, among the user accounts, the account that is usable for the connection target site when connected to the connection target site (it is determined if a site is linked or not [paragraph 43] for displaying linked accounts to login [paragraphs 43 and 47]).
With respect to claim 4, the Nakazato reference teaches all of the limitations of claim 2 as described above. Additionally, the Nakazato reference teaches that the one or more processors are configured to cause the display section to perform display of the usable account based on the correlation information in a case where the display that presents the usable account is performed (the linked accounts are displayed for login [paragraphs 43 and 45-47]).
With respect to claim 5, the Nakazato reference teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as described above. In addition, the Nakazato reference teaches that the one or more processors are configured to cause the display section to perform, as the display based on the correlation information, display of the user account correlated with the connection target site and display of the user accounts not correlated with the connection target site in different display modes (different login screens are generated based upon if a linked site is determined [paragraphs 43-47 and Figure 4]).
With respect to claim 6, the Nakazato reference teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Additionally, the Nakazato reference teaches that the one or more processors are configured to cause the display section to perform, as the display based on the correlation information, display that informs the user of information about the use sites correlated with the user accounts (the usage policy for each site is displayed [paragraphs 53 & 61 and Figure 8]).
With respect to claim 7, the Nakazato reference teaches all of the limitations of claim 6 as described above. In addition, the Nakazato reference teaches that the one or more processors are configured to cause the display section to perform, as the display that informs the user, display based on a number of the use sites correlated with the user accounts (the number of items is used to determine the order for display [paragraph 56]).
With respect to claim 8, the Nakazato reference teaches all of the limitations of claim 7 as described above. Additionally, the Nakazato reference teaches that the one or more processors are configured to cause the display section to perform, as the display based on the number of the use sites, display of an account correlated with a largest number of the use sites and display of other accounts, among the user accounts, in different display modes (the number of items is used to determine the order for display in descending order [paragraph 56]).
With respect to claim 9, the Nakazato reference teaches all of the limitations of claim 7 as described above. In addition, the Nakazato reference teaches that the one or more processors are configured to cause the display section to perform, as the display based on the number of the use sites, display that indicates a number of the use sites correlated with each account that is usable for the connection target site, among the user accounts (the number of items is used to determine the order for display in descending order [paragraph 56]).
With respect to claim 10, the Nakazato reference teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as described above. In addition, the Nakazato reference teaches that the one or more processors are configured to: acquire information on an attribute of the connection target site (account attribute information from the linked site is determined [paragraph 43]); and in a case where the use site has an attribute that coincides with the attribute of the connection target site, cause the display section to perform, as the display based on the correlation information, display that allows the user to recognize the user account correlated with the use site with the attribute (attributes of the accounts for the linked sites are lined up for display [Figure 6 and paragraph 56]).
With respect to claim 11, the Nakazato reference teaches all of the limitations of claim 10 as described above. Additionally, the Nakazato reference teaches that the one or more processors are configured to cause, in a case where a plurality of the use sites have an attribute that coincides with the attribute of the connection target site, the display section to perform, as the display that allows the user to recognize the user account, display of an account correlated with a largest number of the use sites with the attribute and display of other accounts, among the user accounts, in different display modes (the number of common attributes between accounts is used to order the display of the accounts for connecting [paragraphs 56, 58, and 59]).
With respect to claim 13, the limitations of claim 13 are merely the method embodiment of claim 1 and claim 13 recites no further significant limitations therein. Therefore, the limitations of claim 13 are rejected in the analysis of claim 1 and claim 13 is likewise rejected on the same basis.
With respect to claim 14, the limitations of claim 14 are merely the non-transitory computer readable medium embodiment of claim 1 and claim 14 recites no further significant limitations therein. Therefore, the limitations of claim 14 are rejected in the analysis of claim 1 and claim 14 is likewise rejected on the same basis.
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.
Claim(s) 12 with an earliest effective filing date of 8/23/22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakazato (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0314099 published on 10/1/20 as cited on IDS) in view of Queru (U.S. Patent No. 9,058,189 patented on 6/16/15).
With respect to claim 12, the Nakazato reference teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as described above. It does not explicitly recite that the one or more processors are configured to: acquire statistical information that indicates statistics on accounts used for the connection target site by other users different from the user; and cause the display section to perform display about the connection target site and display based on the correlation information and the statistical information. The combination of the Queru and Nakazato references teach that the one or more processors are configured to: acquire statistical information that indicates statistics on accounts used for the connection target site by other users different from the user (multiple user accounts are identified including accounts of other users [Queru col. 5 line 66 to col. 6 line 12]); and cause the display section to perform display about the connection target site and display based on the correlation information and the statistical information (a login screen is generated to enable a user to use a linked account to login [Nakazato paragraphs 43, 50, & 51 and Figure 5]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Nakazato with the login accounts of Queru. Such a modification would have made the system more desirable to users by enabling it to work with multiple people.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wei et al. U.S. Patent No. 11,334,596
One or more embodiments of a synchronization system facilitate selectivity synchronizing digital content items from a collection of digital content items to a local storage of a client device. In particular, one or more embodiments described herein collect and analyze recall data for users of a digital content management system with respect to digital content items to determine synchronization scores for the digital content items. One or more embodiments described herein further include selectively identifying a subset of the digital content items based on the synchronization scores to recommend for synchronization to a local storage of a client device.
Maksimow U.S. Publication No. 2015/0127528
A method of connecting users is disclosed. A method may include creating a plurality of user accounts, each of the user accounts corresponding to one of the plurality of users, and having a plurality of uploadable features including a first feature permitting the user to upload at least one advertisable characteristic to a user account, forming a user network including one or more of the plurality of user accounts in communication with one or more other user accounts, identifying each of the plurality of user accounts containing the at least one advertisable characteristic, linking each of the plurality of user accounts containing the at least one advertisable characteristic, and notifying each of the plurality of user accounts containing the at least one advertisable characteristic of the identity of the other of the plurality of user accounts containing the at least one advertisable characteristic.
Lu et al. U.S. Publication No. 2022/0215498
Systems and method are provided for fraud detection and user account deduplication. One method includes receiving a request from a user to register a third user account; receiving user information associated with the third user account, wherein the user information comprises a second attribute; at a third time entry, modifying the first data store by: searching the plurality of first entries in the first data store; comparing the second attribute to the first attribute of each first entry; determining that at least one first entry comprises a first attribute that is identical to the second attribute; adding second and third entries, wherein the second entry comprises the first and third user accounts, the second attribute, and the first and third time entries; and the third entry comprises the second and third user accounts, the second attribute, and the second and third time entries.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRIS E MACKES whose telephone number is (571)270-3554. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-4:00 EST.
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, Kavita Stanley can be reached at 571-272-8352. 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.
/KRIS E MACKES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2153