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
Status of the Application
The following is a Final Office Action in response to communication received on 12/16/2025. Claims 1-7 are pending in this Office Action.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1-7 are acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
On Remarks page 11, Applicant argues the 101 software per se rejection. Based on Applicant’s amendments the Examiner has withdrawn the previous software per se 101 rejection.
On Remarks page 12, Applicant argues the 101 rejection (abstract idea without significantly more). The Examiner has carefully considered Applicant’s arguments however the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically Applicant argues that features of the claims including hash generation and user device information are not mental process and or organizing human activities. These additional elements were addressed under the practical application and or significantly more steps of the 101 rejection. Therefore the Examiner respectfully disagrees with this argument.
On remarks page 8, Applicant argues with respect to claim 2 that the claim optimizes server load by staggering user access. The Examiner has carefully considered Applicant’s arguments however the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Here the claims are recited at such a high level of abstraction they merely recite a mental process or method of organizing humans activities step of preventing a user from participating for a specific period of time. The only additional element of this broadly recited as being performed by a “processor” merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed below in the 101 rejection.
On Remarks page 9, Applicant argues claim 3. Here Applicant argues that this claim cannot be performed manually due to the volume and complexity of data processing involved therefore providing a technical improvement. The Examiner has carefully considered Applicant’s arguments however the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Here the claims are recited at such a high level of abstraction they merely recite a mental process or method of organizing humans activities step of monitoring and granting participating rights in engagement activities based on aggregation of interactions over a predetermined duration. The only additional element of this being performed broadly by a “processor” merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed below in the 101 rejection.
On Remarks pages 9-10, Applicant argues this cannot be performed in the human mind and therefore is a hardware dependent feature. The Examiner has carefully considered Applicant’s arguments however the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Here the claims are recited at such a high level of abstraction they merely recite a mental process or method of organizing humans activities steps of encryption of two different identifiers and establishing correlations between them. The additional element that this encryption is a hash being performed by a processor merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed below, as discussed in the 101 rejection below.
On Remarks page 11, with respect to claim 6, Applicant argues the “hash” limitation cannot be performed in the human mind and provides a technical improvement in secure data. This limitation has been addressed as an additional element in the practical application or significantly more steps as detailed in the 101 rejection below. It is noted here as recited broadly in the claims, Applicant is merely using hash as the encryption technique rather than claiming an improvement in hashing.
On Remarks page 12, Applicant argues the present invention provides a technical solution to a technical problem. The Examiner has carefully considered Applicant’s arguments however the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are not similar to those previously found related to this analysis, like the DDR Holdings decision. Instead here the claims are recited at such a high level of abstraction, they merely recite mental process or human activity steps of the idea of linking a real user identifier with an anonymous correlation (identifier) and then allowing the user to participate in engagement activities according to rules in a system or network. The additional argued elements of the identifier is “hashed” is recited at such a high level of generally it merely recite apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers. Specifically here merely using hash as the type of encryption claimed.
Specifically here the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to the abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Further the claims recite only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result does not integration a judicial exception into a practical application provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words apply it. This is the case here as the additional limitations provide only a result orientation solution and lack details as to how the computer perform modifications other than being performed by a processor (“one or more computing devices each comprising a processor, a memory, and a network interface” and “by the processor”), the environment being “online social networking” and the identifier being a “hash”.
In response to Applicant’s arguments that the hash provides a confidential link between real-ids and user profiles to prevent direct exposure of sensitive data, this is found in the abstract idea (mental process or human activity) steps of encryption. Specifically encryption as recited at such a high broad level here can be performed as a mental process or human activity step of for safety and security converting one identifier to another and establishing a correlation between the two. As Trading Technologies, discloses in MPEP 2106.05(a), the judicial exception (abstract idea) cannot provide the improvement. Therefore the Examiner finds the argument not persuasive.
The additional element that the specific type of encryption is hash merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers, as discussed in the 101 rejection below.
As to Applicant’s arguments on page 13 with respect to claim 5, the claims recite utilizing the user’s information and location information to detect and avert instances of the identical real id or identifier usage across multiple accounts, thereby ensuring distinct interactions for each user. These are limitations a human or humans could perform given their broad recitation in the claim, therefore are part of the abstract idea. The additional element the user identifier is a “hash” generated by being implemented by a “processor” is previously discussed above in this response to arguments section.
Arguments to well known or conventional while considered are not persuasive, as these additional elements are recited at such a broad level of recitation that they merely result in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed in the 101 rejection below. The additional elements have not been rejected under insignificant extra solution activity and well understood, routine, and conventional activities.
As to Applicant’s arguments on pages 13-16, Applicant argues the 112 a/first rejection. The amendment filed 12/16/2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
Specifically, Applicant’s amendments to the specification that add amendments including “processor driven”, “processor based” and “against secure external databases” do not comply with MPEP 2163.07. Specifically MPEP 2163.07 discusses amendments to an application that are (1) rephrasing, (2) obvious errors, (3) inherent function, theory, advantage, or (4) incorporation by reference are not new matter. Here the amendments is not about rephrasing, obvious errors with respect to translation, or by incorporation by reference nor does Applicant argue such.
Applicant argues the functions are inherent (See Remarks page 15). Inherent function, theory or advantage in 2163.07 discusses a disclosed device and a corresponding inherent function. Whereas Applicant’s amendments here are with respect to a different fact pattern of a disclosed function and an argued inherent machine. Therefore, MPEP 2163.07 of inherent function, theory or advantage does not apply.
Further even if it is determined that (3) inherent function, theory, advantage should apply to a disclosed function and a corresponding argued inherent machine or device, MPEP 2163.07 states “"To establish inherency, the extrinsic evidence ‘must make clear that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing described in the reference, and that it would be so recognized by persons of ordinary skill. Inherency, however, may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.’" In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745, 49 USPQ2d 1949, 1950-51 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citations omitted).”
Here the evidence does not make it clear it is necessarily present in the thing described in the reference. For example why is it necessarily present that the cross references being against secure external databases, rather than internal databases, or unsecured external databases. Further why it is necessarily present that the functions are “processor driven” or “processor based” rather than some other type of machine, structure, etc.
Finally even if the specification amendments filed 12/16/2025 did not recite new matter, which the Examiner does not contend based on the above, these amendments in the specification of being “processor driven” or “processor based” do not actually provide the structure for the system/method as now recited in the claims (“implemented by the processor” and “one or more computing devices each comprising a processor, a memory and a network interface”.) The specification here as amended does not positively recite the structure or machine that actually performs these associated functions, rather they merely disclose that some of the claimed functions are somehow “processor based” or “processor driven.”
Therefore the Examiner respectfully maintains a 112 a/first rejection with respect to Applicant’s claims as amended.
On Remarks page 17, Applicant argues the 112 f/sixth interpretation and corresponding rejections. Based on Applicant’s amendments reciting structure in the claims the Examiner has withdrawn the previous 112 sixth/f interpretation and corresponding 112 a/first and 112 b/second rejections.
Based on Applicant’s amendments, the Examiner has withdrawn the previous 112 b/second rejections (see Remarks page 18).
In response to applicant's argument on remarks page 18, that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., Firstly, Pirani does not teach or suggest restricting commenting or engagement based on real-ID verification. Secondly, Pirani lacks any mention of a commenting module that gates platform interaction based on identity verification.) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Rather the claims merely recite permitting a user with a verified ID to participate in one or more engagement activities, e.g. a user without a verified ID could participant in one or more engagement activities. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
As to Applicant’s arguments on pages 18-19 that Pirani does not teach a hash. The Examiner agrees, as the reference of Davis was relief upon to teach such a feature.
On Remarks pages 19-20, Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim(s) recite(s) the idea of linking a real user identifier with an anonymous correlation (identifier) and then allowing the user to participate in engagement activities according to rules in a system or network.
The claims are recited at such a high level of generality that the claims recite observations, evaluations, judgements, and opinions that could be performed by a human or humans or with pen and paper and are accordingly a mental process.
Further the claims recite managing personal behavior or relationships between people including social activities which are a certain methods of organizing human activities.
Mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activities are in the groupings of enumerated abstracts ideas, and hence the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims merely recite limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application in that the claims merely recite:
(1) Adding the words “apply it” ( or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and (2) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Specifically as recited in the claims:
The Examiner notes that the Examiner has bolded and underlined additional elements beyond the abstract idea for distinction. Limitations not bolded and underlined are considered part of the abstract idea.
1. A commenting entitlement system within an online social networking platform utilizing a real-Identification (real-ID) verification, the system (100) comprising:
one or more computing devices each comprising a processor, a memory, and a network interface:
a. a real-Identification (real-ID) set up module (102) implemented by the processor and configured to facilitate a setup for real-Identification (real-ID) verification during a registration process of one or more users within the online social networking platform (101), ensuring authenticity of user profiles;
b. a commenting module (103) implemented by the processor and configured to permit the users with a verified real ID to participate in one or more engagement activities within the online social networking platform (101);
c. a user 'hash' generation module (104) implemented by the processor and configured to generate a unique user 'hash', enabling an anonymous correlation between the real-ID and the corresponding user's profile, thereby providing confidentiality during the process of establishing correlations;
and a multi-account prevention module (105) implemented by the processor and configured to curtail the engagement activities across multiple accounts associated with the users utilizing the identical real ID-based user 'hash'.
2. The system (100) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to implement a predetermined time delay before the users are permitted to participate in the engagement activities.
3. The system (100) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to monitor the user interactions and grant participation rights in the engagement activities to the users based on an aggregation of favourable interactions over a predetermined duration.
4. The system (100) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the unique user 'hash' generation module (104) employs an encryption technique to establish and secure the anonymous correlation between the real-ID's and corresponding users.
5. The system (100) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the processor utilizes the user's device and location information to detect and avert instances of the identical real ID-based user 'hash' usage across multiple accounts, thereby ensuring distinct interactions for each user.
6. A method for ensuring the authenticity and accountability of user interactions within an online social networking platform utilizing real-ID verification, the method (200) implemented by one or more computing devices each comprising a processor, a memory, and a network interface the method comprising the steps of:
a. allowing a user to establish a real-ID during a registration process within an online social networking platform (201);
b. extending to the user an entitlement to participate in one or more engagement activities, subsequent to the establishment of the real-IDs (202);
c. establishing a distinctive user 'hash', facilitating an anonymous correlation between the user's real-ID and an associated user profile, thus ensuring confidentiality during correlation establishment (203);
and d. confining the user from employing multiple accounts to engage in the interaction activities within the online social networking platform by interlinking the distinct user 'hash' with the real-ID across diverse accounts (204).
7. The method (200) as claimed in claim 6, wherein a unique user 'hash' is generated through utilization of a cryptographic technique, thereby ensuring security and irreversible correlation between the real-ID and a corresponding user profile.
As per claim 1, the claims recite verifying a read id during a registration process of users in a system to ensure authenticity of user profiles, permitting verified users to participate in one or more engagement activities in a network or platform, generating a unique identifier enabling correlation between the real id and the users thereby providing anonymous correlation during the process of establishing correlations, and curtailing engagement activities across multiple accounts based on the unique identifier. These are limitations a human or humans could perform given their broad recitation in the claims. The additional elements that these limitations that could be performed by a human or human are instead recited as being implemented by a processor (“one or more computing devices each comprising a processor, a memory, and a network interface” and “module implemented by the processor”), the environment being “online social networking” and the identifier being a “hash” merely result in “apply it”.
Specifically here the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to the abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Further the claims recite only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result does not integration a judicial exception into a practical application provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words apply it. This is the case here as the additional limitations provide only a result orientation solution and lack details as to how the computer perform modifications other than being performed by a processor (“one or more computing devices each comprising a processor, a memory, and a network interface” and “module implemented by the processor”), the environment being “online social networking” and the identifier being a “hash” performed by software running on a computer.
Further limitations that could be performed by a human or humans that are recited in the broad recitation in the claims as instead being implemented by a processor (“one or more computing devices each comprising a processor, a memory, and a network interface” and “module being implemented by the processor”), the environment being “online social networking” and the identifier being a “hash”, merely result in generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the field of computers.
As per claim 2, the claims recite implementing a predetermined time delay before the users are permitted to participate in engagement activities. These are limitations a human or humans could perform. The additional element that these limitations are done by a processor merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above in claim 1.
As per claim 3, the claims recite monitoring the user interactions and grant participation rights in the engagement activities to the users based on an aggregation of favorable interactions over a predetermined duration. These are limitations a human or humans could perform. The additional element that these limitations are done by a processor merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above in claim 1.
As per claim 4, the claims recite employing an encryption technique to establish and secure the anonymous correlation between the real IDs and corresponding users. These are limitations a human or humans could perform given their broad recitation in the claim. The additional element that these limitations are done by a processor (see ‘hash’ generation module from claim 1) merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above in claim 1.
As per claim 5, the claims recite utilizing the user’s information and location information to detect and avert instances of the identical real id or identifier usage across multiple accounts, thereby ensuring distinct interactions for each user. These are limitations a human or humans could perform given their broad recitation in the claim. The additional element the user identifier is a “hash” generated by being implemented “processor” is previously addressed in claim 1. The additional element that the user information is user device information rather than for example a user’s name merely results in “apply it.” Specifically here the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to the abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Further the claims recite only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result does not integration a judicial exception into a practical application provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words apply it.
Further limitations that could be performed by a human or humans that are recited in the broad recitation in the claims as instead being user device information rather than for example a user’s name and being implemented by “processor” merely results in generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the field of computers.
As per claim 6, the claims recite verifying a real id during a registration process of users in a system to ensure authenticity of user profiles, permitting verified users to participate in one or more engagement activities in a network or platform, generating a unique identifier enabling correlation between the real id and the users thereby providing anonymous correlation during the process of establishing correlations, and curtailing engagement activities across multiple accounts based on the unique identifier. These are limitations a human or humans could perform given their broad recitation in the claims.
The additional elements that these limitations that could be performed by a human or human are instead recited as in an environment being “online social networking”, the identifier being a “hash”, and being implemented by “one or more computing devices each comprising a processor, a memory, and a network interface” merely result in “apply it”.
Specifically here the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to the abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Further the claims recite only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result does not integration a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words apply it. This is the case here as the additional limitations provide only a result orientation solution and lack details as to how the computer perform modifications other the environment being “online social networking” , the identifier being a “hash”, and being implemented by “one or more computing devices each comprising a processor, a memory, and a network interface”.
Further limitations that could be performed by a human or humans that are recited in the broad recitation in the claims as the environment being “online social networking”, the identifier being a “hash”, being implemented by “one or more computing devices each comprising a processor, a memory, and a network interface”, merely result in generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the field of computers.
As per claim 7, the claims recite the user identifier is generated through utilization of a cryptographic technique thereby ensuring the security and irreversible correlation between the real ID and the corresponding user profile. These are limitations a human or humans could perform given their broad recitation in the claim. The additional element that in these limitations that the user identifier is a “hash” merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above in claim 1.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims merely recite limitations that are not indicative of an inventive concept (“significantly more”) in that the claims merely recite: (1) Adding the words “apply it” ( or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and (2) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), as detailed above under the practical application step.
Specification
The amendment to the specification filed 12/16/2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
Applicant’s amendments to the specification that add amendments including “processor driven”, “processor based” and “against secure external databases” do not comply with MPEP 2163.07. Specifically MPEP 2163.07 discusses amendments to the application that are (1) rephrasing, (2) obvious errors, (3) inherent function, theory, or advantage, or (4) incorporation by reference are not new matter.
Applicant argues the functions are inherent (See Remarks page 15). Inherent function, theory or advantage in MPEP 2163.07 discusses a disclosed device and a corresponding inherent function. Whereas Applicant’s amendments here are with respect to a different fact pattern of a disclosed function and an argued inherent machine. Therefore, MPEP 2163.07 of inherent function, theory or advantage does not apply.
Further even if it is determined that (3) inherent function, theory, advantage should apply to a disclosed function and a corresponding argued inherent machine or device, MPEP 2163.07 states “"To establish inherency, the extrinsic evidence ‘must make clear that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing described in the reference, and that it would be so recognized by persons of ordinary skill. Inherency, however, may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.’" In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745, 49 USPQ2d 1949, 1950-51 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citations omitted).”
Here the evidence does not make it clear it is necessarily present in the thing described in the reference. For example why is it necessarily present that the cross references being against secure external databases, rather than internal databases, or unsecured external databases. Further why it is necessarily present that the functions are “processor driven” or “processor based” rather than some other type of machine, structure, etc.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As per claims 1-6, Applicant recites the amended claim limitations of:
-One or more computing devices each comprising a processor, a memory, and a network interface (see claim 1)
- a real-Identification (real-ID) set up module (102) implemented by the processor and configured to facilitate a setup for real-Identification (real-ID) verification during a registration process of one or more users within the online social networking platform (101), ensuring authenticity of user profiles; (see claim 1)
- a commenting module (103) implemented by the processor and configured to permit the users with a verified real ID to participate in one or more engagement activities within the online social networking platform (101); (see claim 1)
- a user 'hash' generation module (104) implemented by the processor and configured to generate a unique user 'hash', enabling an anonymous correlation between the real-ID and the corresponding user profile, thereby providing confidentiality during a process of establishing correlations; (see claim 1)
-and a multi-account prevention module (105) implemented by the processor configured to curtail the engagement activities across multiple accounts associated with a user utilizing the identical real ID-based user 'hash'. (see claim 1)
- wherein the processor is configured to implement a predetermined time delay before the users are permitted to participate in the engagement activities. (see claim 2)
-wherein the processor is configured to monitor the user interactions and grant participation rights in the engagement activities to the users based on an aggregation of favourable interactions over a predetermined duration (see claim 3)
-wherein the unique user 'hash' generation module (104) employs an encryption technique to establish and secure the anonymous correlation between the real-ID's and corresponding user profile (see claim 4)
- wherein the processor utilizes the user's device and location information to detect and avert instances of the identical real ID-based user 'hash' usage across multiple accounts, thereby ensuring distinct interactions for each user (see claim 5)
- the method (200) implemented by one or more computing devices each comprising a processor, a memory, and a network interface the method comprising the steps of: (see claim 6)
The amended claims recite the system comprising one or more computing devices each comprising a processor, a memory, and a network interface (see claim 1) and being implemented by a processor. Further the amended claims recite the method being implemented “by one or more computing devices each comprising a processor, a memory, and a network interface”
In Applicant’s originally filed specification dated 8/21/2023 there is no recitation of a computer, software, hardware, machine, processor, etc. anywhere in Applicant’s specification as filed. Applicant’s amendments to the specification discussed above (under the specification section), filed 12/16/2025, introduce new matter. Therefore the claims are not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Even if the specification amendments filed 12/16/2025 did not include new matter, which the Examiner does not contend based on the above, these amendments in the specification of being “processor driven” Or “processor based” do not actually provide the structure for the system/method as now recited in the claims (“implemented by the processor” and “one or more computing devices each comprising a processor a memory and a network interface”.) The specification here as amended does not positively recite the structure or machine that actually performs these associated functions, rather they merely disclose that some of the claimed functions are somehow “processor based” or “processor driven.” Therefore further the claims are not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Further claim 7 is rejected based on its dependency on claim 6.
Therefore claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pirani (United Stats Patent Application Publication Number: US 2013/0091581) further in view of Davis et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2013/0061050).
As per claim 1, Pirani teaches A commenting entitlement system within an online social networking platform utilizing a real-Identification (real-ID) verification, the system (100) comprising: (see abstract, Examiner’s note: methods and system that allow a user to establish and maintain verified anonymity).
One or more computing devices each comprising a processor, a memory, and a network interface a real-Identification (real-ID) set up module (102) implemented by the processor and configured to facilitate a setup for real-Identification (real-ID) verification during a registration process of one or more users within the online social networking platform (101), ensuring authenticity of user profiles; (see paragraph 0020, 0023-0024, and 0028, Examiner’s note: teaches software and computers to operate the system in Pirani (see paragraph 0020). These verify user information is real (see paragraphs 0023-0024 and 0028)).
a commenting module (103) implemented by the processor and configured to permit the users with a verified real ID to participate in one or more engagement activities within the online social networking platform (101); (see paragraph 0020, 0029, and 0042, Examiner’s note: teaches software and computers to operate the system in Pirani (see paragraph 0020). Teaches after a user is validated the user may be able to access the online communities functionality (see paragraph 0029 and 0042)).
a user 'identifier' generation module (104) implemented by the processor and configured to generate a unique user 'identifier', enabling an anonymous correlation between the real-ID and the corresponding user's profile, thereby providing confidentiality during a process of establishing correlations; (see paragraphs 0020, 0025-0026, 0034, and 0036-0038, Examiner’s note: teaches software and computers to operate the system in Pirani (see paragraph 0020). Further teaches creating a pseudonym to interact with the system and is connected to the user’s accounts (see paragraphs 0025-0026, 0034, and 0036-0038).
And a multi-account prevention module (105) implemented by the processor and configured to curtail the engagement activities across multiple accounts associated with the users utilizing the identical real ID-based user 'identifier'. (see paragraphs 0020, 0025-0026, 0034, and 0036-0038, Examiner’s note: teaches software and computers to operate the system in Pirani (see paragraph 0020). Further teaches determining the pseudonym is unique and cannot be used with other accounts (see paragraphs 0025-0026, 0034-0037)).
Pirani does not expressly teach an identifier is a ‘hash’ as recited in the claims
However, Davis et al. which is in the art of assigning identifiers based on other identifiers (see paragraph 0028) in a social network (see paragraph 0036, 0087, and 0089) teaches the identifier is a ‘hash’ as recited in the claims (see paragraph 0094-0095, and claim 34, Examiner’s note: teaches encrypting techniques for sharing identifiers but still protecting the underlying information from undesirable entities and hash being one of the encrypting techniques).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Pirani with the aforementioned teachings from Davis et al with the motivation of providing a commonly known encryption technique to be able to share or use identifiers but still protect them and the underlying data from undesirable use or entities (See Davis paragraphs 00930-0095), when using identifiers to process and provide information is known (see Pirani paragraphs 0020, 0025-0026, 0034, and 0036-0038).
As per claim 2, Pirani teaches
wherein the processor is configured to implement a predetermined time delay before the users are permitted to participate in the engagement activities (see paragraphs 0029 and 0036-0041, Examiner’s note: teaches waiting to grant access to certain parts or functions of the system until the information is received).
As per claim 3, Pirani teaches
wherein the processor is configured to monitor the user interactions and grant participation rights in the engagement activities to the users based on an aggregation of favourable interactions over a predetermined duration. (see paragraphs 0029, 0036-0041, Examiner’s note: teaches waiting to grant access to certain parts or functions of the system until the information is received, which are user interactions).
As per claim 4, Pirani teaches
wherein the unique user 'identifier' generation module (104) employs an technique to establish and secure the anonymous correlation between the real-ID's and corresponding user profile. (see paragraphs 0020, 0025-0026, 0034, and 0036-0038, Examiner’s note: teaches software and computers to operate the system in Pirani (see paragraph 0020). Further teaches determining the pseudonym is unique and allowing a user to communicate via the pseudonym (see paragraphs 0025-0026, 0034-0037)).
Pirani does not expressly teach the identifier is a ‘hash’ from an encryption technique as recited in the claims
However, Davis et al. which is in the art of assigning identifiers based on other identifiers (see paragraph 0028) in a social network (see paragraph 0036, 0087, and 0089) teach the identifier is a ‘hash’ from an encryption technique as recited in the claims (see paragraph 0094-0095, and claim 34, Examiner’s note: teaches encrypting techniques for sharing identifiers but still protecting the underlying information from undesirable entities and hash being one of the encrypting techniques).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Pirani with the aforementioned teachings from Davis et al with the motivation of providing a commonly known encryption technique to be able to share or use identifiers but still protect them and the underlying data from undesirable use or entities (See Davis paragraphs 00930-0095), when using identifiers to process and provide information is known (see Pirani paragraphs 0020, 0025-0026, 0034, and 0036-0038).
As per claim 5, Pirani teaches
wherein the processor is configured to utilize the user's device (see paragraphs 0026 and 0039, Examiner’s note: ensures the user has access to the mobile phone provided).
and location information to detect and avert (see paragraphs 0012-0013, and 0048 Examiner’s note: confirming a user’s address is accurate)
instances of the identical real ID-based user 'identifier' usage across multiple accounts, thereby ensuring distinct interactions for each user (see paragraphs 0012-0013, 0026, 0039, and 0048, Examiner’s note: confirming information of the user for allowing the user to interact with the system).
Pirani does not expressly teach the identifier is a ‘hash’ as recited in the claims
However, Davis et al. which is in the art of assigning identifiers based on other identifiers (see paragraph 0028) in a social network (see paragraph 0036, 0087, and 0089) teaches the identifier is a ‘hash’ as recited in the claims (see paragraph 0094-0095, and claim 34, Examiner’s note: teaches encrypting techniques for sharing identifiers but still protecting the underlying information from undesirable entities and hash being one of the encrypting techniques).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Pirani with the aforementioned teachings from Davis et al with the motivation of providing a commonly known encryption technique to be able to share or use identifiers but still protect them and the underlying data from undesirable use or entities (See Davis paragraphs 00930-0095), when using identifiers to process and provide information is known (see Pirani paragraphs 0020, 0025-0026, 0034, and 0036-0038).
As per claim 6, Pirani teaches A method for ensuring the authenticity and accountability of user interactions within an online social networking platform utilizing real-ID verification, the method (200) implemented by one or more computing devices each comprising a processor, a memory, and a network interface comprising the steps of: (see abstract and paragraph 0020, Examiner’s note: methods and system that allow a user to establish and maintain verified anonymity (see abstract) and further teaches software and computers to operate the system in Pirani (see paragraph 0020).
a. allowing a user to establish a real-ID during a registration process within an online social networking platform (201); (see paragraph 0020, 0023-0024, and 0028, Examiner’s note: teaches software and computers to operate the system in Pirani (see paragraph 0020). These verify user information is real (see paragraphs 0023-0024 and 0028)).
b. extending to the user an entitlement to participate in one or more engagement activities, subsequent to the establishment of the real-IDs (202); (see paragraph 0020, 0029, and 0042, Examiner’s note: teaches software and computers to operate the system in Pirani (see paragraph 0020). Teaches after a user is validated the user may be able to access the online communities functionality (see paragraph 0029 and 0042)).
c. establishing a distinctive user 'identifier', facilitating an anonymous correlation between the user's real-ID and an associated user profile, thus ensuring confidentiality during a correlation establishment (203); (see paragraphs 0020, 0025-0026, 0034, and 0036-0038, Examiner’s note: teaches software and computers to operate the system in Pirani (see paragraph 0020). Further teaches creating a pseudonym to interact with the system and is connected to the user’ accounts (see paragraphs 0025-0026, 0034, 0036-0038).
and d. confining the user from employing multiple accounts to engage in interaction activities within the online social networking platform by interlinking the distinct user 'identifier' with the real-ID across diverse accounts (204). (see paragraphs 0020, 0025-0026, 0034, and 0036-0038, Examiner’s note: teaches software and computers to operate the system in Pirani (see paragraph 0020). Further teaches determining the pseudonym is unique and allowing a user to interact with a pseudonym in the system (see paragraphs 0025-0026, 0034-0037)).
Pirani does not expressly teach the identifier is a ‘hash’ as recited in the claims
However, Davis et al. which is in the art of assigning identifiers based on other identifiers (see paragraph 0028) in a social network (see paragraph 0036, 0087, and 0089) teaches the identifier is a ‘hash’ as recited in the claims (see paragraph 0094-0095, and claim 34, Examiner’s note: teaches encrypting techniques for sharing identifiers but still protecting the underlying information from undesirable entities and hash being one of the encrypting techniques).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Pirani with the aforementioned teachings from Davis et al with the motivation of providing a commonly known encryption technique to be able to share or use identifiers but still protect them and the underlying data from undesirable use or entities (See Davis paragraphs 00930-0095), when using identifiers to process and provide information is known (see Pirani paragraphs 0020, 0025-0026, 0034, and 0036-0038).
As per claim 7, Pirani teaches
wherein a unique user 'identifier' is generated through utilization of a technique, thereby ensuring security and irreversible correlation between the real-ID and a corresponding use profile. (see paragraphs 0020, 0025-0026, 0034, and 0036-0038, Examiner’s note: teaches software and computers to operate the system in Pirani (see paragraph 0020). Further teaches determining the pseudonym is unique and allowing a user to interact with a pseudonym (see paragraphs 0025-0026, 0034-0037)).
Pirani does not expressly teach the identifier is a ‘hash’ from an encryption technique as recited in the claims
However, Davis et al. which is in the art of assigning identifiers based on other identifiers (see paragraph 0028) in a social network (see paragraph 0036, 0087, and 0089) teaches the identifier is a ‘hash’ from an encryption technique as recited in the claims (see paragraph 0094-0095, and claim 34, Examiner’s note: teaches encrypting techniques for sharing identifiers but still protecting the underlying information from undesirable entities and hash being one of the encrypting techniques).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Pirani with the aforementioned teachings from Davis et al with the motivation of providing a commonly known encryption technique to be able to share or use identifiers but still protect them and the underlying data from undesirable use or entities (See Davis paragraphs 00930-0095), when using identifiers to process and provide information is known (see Pirani paragraphs 0020, 0025-0026, 0034, and 0036-0038).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Edouard (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2015/0172254) teaches correlating a real id with a virtual id to allow anonymous interactions in a social network (see abstract and paragraphs 0002-0003)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIERSTEN SUMMERS whose telephone number is (571)272-6542. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7-3:30.
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, Nathan Uber can be reached on 5712703923. 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.
/KIERSTEN V SUMMERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626