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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because
Under Step 2A, the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). The claims are directed to the abstract ideas of mental steps.
The instant application discloses a series of mental processes wherein the invention focuses on comparing two strings of letters by putting the strings in a matrix to determine similarity and thus identify a name group for the strings. The MPEP states that the following are mental processes that can be conducted using pencil and paper: “claims to “comparing BRCA sequences and determining the existence of alterations,” where the claims cover any way of comparing BRCA sequences such that the comparison steps can practically be performed in the human mind, University of Utah Research Foundation v. Ambry Genetics, 774 F.3d 755, 763, 113 USPQ2d 1241, 1246 (Fed. Cir. 2014)” and “a claim to collecting and comparing known information (claim 1), which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind, Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1067, 100 USPQ2d 1492, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 2011);” Here, comparisons are also being performed that can be completed using pencil and paper or a computer as a tool, wherein the invention requires a Jaccard Distance function and vector creation to be performed. The rest of the claims include using different alphabets, however such is only defining the symbols and letters used within the strings. For these reasons the claims exemplify a mental process and thus an abstract idea.
and such can be completed using pen and paper
The second prong of Step 2A, ask whether the claims recite additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Here, no such practical application exists. There is no improvement made to computer technology since the claims discuss comparing user nicknames. This is not a longstanding problem in computer technology. Additionally, there is no practical application as there is no particular machine that is used to implement the claim language, but instead and as will be discussed below only generic computers are used to perform the invention. Also, there is no transformation of the machine used in the application into a different state or thing. . Lastly, the claims do not attempt to apply the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond simply using the claimed machine.
Step 2B asks whether a claimed invention which fails Step 2A contains an inventive concepts, i.e. significantly more. Here the invention does not recite significantly more as the claim language only recites only a computer with a processor, both which are well known, common, and routine, in the art. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea that lacks significantly more and thus is not patent eligible. Therefore, the abstract idea lacks significantly more to make the claims eligible patent subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 3, 5, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Battestini (U.S. PGPUB 2011/0125770).
Re claims 1, 7, and 8: Battestini discloses a method for detecting a multi-access account using a similarity between nicknames (see paragraph [0043]: showing a map of multiple user accounts to be connected together), which is performed by a computing device, the method comprising:
acquiring a plurality of component information from a plurality of nickname information based on predetermined configuration unit information (see paragraph [0042]: names and letters within the names are sourced from username data. Additionally, the system inherently include a configuration unit that includes letters, symbols, and numbers to be included in user names);
generating a nickname matrix using the plurality of component information (see paragraph [0042]: the system uses SmithWaterman functions which places both strings into a matrix to determine the similarity of said strings);
determining a similarity between nickname information using the nickname matrix (see paragraph [0041]: “ach link may have a matching confidence level that represents the system's confidence in asserting that the two profiles belong to the same persona. For example, a value of 1.0, or 100% for the confidence level may represent that the two profiles belong to the same persona while a confidence level of 0.0 or 0% may represent that the two profiles do not belong to the same persona. A confidence level between 0.0 (0%) and 1.0 (100%) may indicate that there is a possibility that the two profiles belong to the same persona.”) and
determining a similar nickname group using the similarity (see paragraph [0052]: “When two or more profiles have a matching confidence measure greater than the threshold value v, the profiles may be moved or duplicated and grouped together.”).
Re claim 3: Battestini discloses with respect to the method of claim 1, wherein the component information defines existence or non-existence of a component included in the predetermined configuration unit information in the corresponding nickname information (the name identifier identifies characters in the names, which are found in the English alphabet used by the system).
Re claim 5: Battestini discloses with respect to the method of claim 1, wherein the predetermined configuration unit information includes English alphabet (see Fig. 3 and Fig. 5: the system uses the English alphabet).
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) 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Battestini in view of (WO2007149623).
Re claim 4: Battestini fails to disclose with respect to the method of claim 1, wherein the predetermined configuration unit information includes Korean vowels and consonants. However, Tang like Battestini, discloses a system for comparing strings of words using a Smith Warren comparison matrix, wherein the alphabets for the letters in said strings include Arabic and Korean [0052]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to modify the system of Battestini with the Korean and Arabic alphabets for the purpose of expanding the types of usernames that are available to players using the system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REGINALD A RENWICK whose telephone number is (571)270-1913. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11am-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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571)270-1344. 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.
REGINALD A. RENWICK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3714
/REGINALD A RENWICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715