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 Claims
Claims 1-5 are amended
Claims 15 are pending
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is maintained.
Response to Applicant Remarks
Applicant’s well-articulated remarks have been considered but are not persuasive for the reasons below.
Regarding the rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant argues that the claimed invention is patent eligible. (Applicant’s 12/11/25 remarks, p.5, “Thus, the different pseudo part numbers are released to companies to which the part number is not to be released. Since different pseudo part numbers are assigned to companies, even if the pseudo part numbers are cross-checked, a third party will not be able to identify the status of transactions between the companies. On the other hand, by referring to the pseudo part number, companies related to the target product can ascertain the status of transactions for the target product. Therefore, it is possible to manage the status of transactions of the target product while ensuring confidentiality of the status of transactions of the target product (paragraph[0010]). Accordingly, Claim 1 is directed to patent-eligible matter.”). The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant has not explained why “manage the status of transactions of the target product while ensuring confidentiality of the status of transactions of the target product.” Is more than an abstract idea. The examiner respectfully suggests that a human could mentally decide what information to share with what parties to ensure confidentiality. As claimed, the invention does not appear to be a technological solution to a technical problem.
Applicant’s amendments are addressed by the newly cited art.
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 1-5 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. Regarding independent claim 1 the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites the abstract idea of using a pseudo part number which is a mental process. Other than reciting a processor/unit nothing in the claims precludes the steps from being performed mentally. But for the processor/unit the limitations on obtain release designation for a part number release to companies, generating a different pseudo part number to companies when the part number is not to be released, release pseudo part number instead of number is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation could be performed by mentally but for the recitation of generic computer elements. If claim limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The computers are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The additional element(s) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer environment is not a practical application of the abstract idea and does not take the claim out of the mental process grouping.
The claims do 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 element of a device amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Collecting, analyzing and displaying information, and receiving and transmitting over a network are conventional in the computing arts. (MPEP 2106.05h; See also MPEP 2106.05, Alice v. CLS, “. Nearly every computer will include a ‘communications controller’ and ‘data storage unit’ capable of performing the basic calculation, storage, and transmission functions required by the method claims.”).] The claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding the dependent claims, these claims are directed to limitations which serve to limit the using pseudo part number steps. The subject matter of claims 2 (generate and store correspondence between part number and pseudo part number), 3 (obtain generate rule and generate pseudo part number according to generation rule), 4 (generate pseudo part number in accordance with generation rule and notify external platform generate rule), 5 (obtain existing list of pseudo part numbers and generate pseudo part number such that it does not overlap pseudo part numbers in list) appear to add additional steps to the abstract idea, implemented by generic computers. These claims neither introduce a new abstract idea nor additional limitations which are significantly more than an abstract idea. They provide descriptive details that offer helpful context, but have no impact on statutory subject matter eligibility.
Therefore the limitations on the invention, when viewed individually and in ordered combination are directed to in-eligible subject matter.
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 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.
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarin 20200210997
In view of Eisenson 20060195562 in view of Mar, “Canary Trap Explained”, 2013, https://arch.simplicable.com/arch/new/what-is-a-canary-trap
Regarding Claim 1,
a processor that is configured to:
obtain designation of whether to release a …number ….
when it is designated that the …number is not to be released .. generate different pseudo … numbers…, the different pseudo … numbers being not the … number; and
release the different pseudo … numbers instead of the …number,
Sarin is directed to trusted data tokenization system. (Sarin, abstract, “Two devices may interact enough that they develop a trust rating between the two devices that the devices are trusted for transaction processing and resolution. In order to provide asynchronous transaction processing without requiring a token service provider or transaction processor, a parent level token may be issued to the devices by a token service provider based on the trust rating. The devices may receive child level tokens from the parent token, while the parent token is stored by the transaction processor.”)
Sarin discloses when there is not sufficient trust, data may be tokenized to be shared with a party in a transaction. (Sarin, para 0041, “[0041] After determining the interaction data, shared token application 140 may determine a trust score between first user device 110 and second user device 120. The trust score may be determined as a level or ranking of trust between the devices, and may be required to meet or exceed a threshold level before issuance of a parent level token prior to electronic transaction processing between first user device 110 and second user device 120 may be issued. If not, then shared token application 140 may not issue the parent level token, and transaction processing may proceed by availing token service provider 150 for a token to tokenize sensitive data at the time of transaction processing (e.g., when transaction data is issued and a payment instrument is required to be tokenized so that a token may be exchanged during transaction processing and processed).”)
The examiner notes that Sarin discloses that sensitive information may be tokenized to prevent disclosure of data. (Sarin, para 0010, “[0010] Tokenization of sensitive data, such as identity, financial, and/or funding source information, may be utilized in order to protect the data from bad actors and unwanted disclosure of the data to other parties. Tokenization may be implemented by substituting the sensitive data for a known identifier or data token, such as an alphanumeric code or other data representation, by a token service provider, where the token service provider may provide the token for use during data or transaction processing to represent the associated data. The token service provider and/or another transaction processor may process the tokenized data through referential databases by utilizing trusted communications to detokenize the token when received. The referential databases may be used to look up the sensitive data through secure communications so that the data is not disclosed when the token is exchanged between parties.”) Sarin does not explicitly disclose that the data relates to:
Part
product
product
part
part
product
product
part
part
Eisenson is directed to a system for confidentially distributing goods and parts. (Eisonson, abstract). Eisonson discloses that parties to a transaction may wish to prevent disclosure of part information. (Eisonson para 0120, “[0120] Comparison step 200 generates complementary matches 202 and presents match report 204, which is the complementary match that will be communicated back to the nodes 101. The confidentiality means 203 prevents disclosure of pre-determined technical specifications by the at least two nodes. In addition, the confidentiality means prevents the disclosure of the association between the at least two nodes and parts sold or bought. This prevention of technical specification disclosure and association disclosure prevents a compromise of company-confidential information. FIG. 5 illustrates match report 204 being generated from complementary match 202. The communicating means 106 sends the non-confidential complementary match report 204 to node 12 and node 16.”; claim 14, “14. The system of claim 12 wherein the at least two nodes communicates to the exchange processing means using vendor-standard part numbers, part number equivalents, custom part numbers, or technical specifications.”) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to combine Sarin with the part/product of Eisonson with the motivation of confidentially selling goods. Id.
Sarin does not explicitly disclose
of a target product of a target company to each of a group of companies to which …information of the target …is released, the target company being not included in the group;
to at least two companies of the group, …. for the at least two companies
to the at least two companies, respectively.
Mar is directed to an explanation of the canary trap security technique. (Mar, p.1). Mar teaches that disclosed information could be intentionally tailored to a recipient such that any leak of the information may be traced back to a recipient. (Mar, p.1, “A canary trap is information that's given a signature for the purpose of identifying the source of a leak or information misuse.”; p.2, “Examples of Canary Traps
A canary trap is any digital signature embedded in information that can be traced to a source such as an individual or an IP address. Examples include:
Watermarks: a unique watermark can be embedded in each copy of an image displayed or distributed to users.
Coded Anti-Piracy: a video can be encoded with distinguishing patterns of dots.
Serial Number: software or product prototypes may include embedded serial numbers that are traceable.
Design Specifications: Product design specifications may include a unique false spec for each copy distributed to partners in a supply chain.”) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to combine Sarin and Eisonson with the signature of Mar with the motivation of detecting information leaks. Id.
Regarding Claim 2, Sarin, Eisonson and Mar disclose the device of claim 1.
wherein the processor is further configured to: generate part number management information indicating a correspondence between the part number and the different pseudo part numbers; and store the part number management information in a predetermined storage area.
See prior art rejection of claim 1 regarding Sarin.
Regarding Claim 3, Sarin, Eisonson and Mar disclose the device of claim 1.
the processor is further configured to obtain a generation rule of the different pseudo part numbers on an external platform; and
the different pseudo part numbers are generated in accordance with the obtained generation rule.
Sarin discloses generation of a token based on determination of a determine trust score. The examiner interprets this to read on generation of a pseudo part number based on a rule.
(Sarin, para 0041, “[0041] After determining the interaction data, shared token application 140 may determine a trust score between first user device 110 and second user device 120. The trust score may be determined as a level or ranking of trust between the devices, and may be required to meet or exceed a threshold level before issuance of a parent level token prior to electronic transaction processing between first user device 110 and second user device 120 may be issued. If not, then shared token application 140 may not issue the parent level token, and transaction processing may proceed by availing token service provider 150 for a token to tokenize sensitive data at the time of transaction processing (e.g., when transaction data is issued and a payment instrument is required to be tokenized so that a token may be exchanged during transaction processing and processed). However, if the trust level meets or exceeds the threshold, shared token application 140 may request token service provider 150 to issue a token for the sensitive data prior to transaction processing. Token service provider 150 may provide a token to shared token application 140, which may tokenize the sensitive data. The parent level token may be issued with one or more child level tokens that provide asynchronous transaction processing. Thus, when a child level token is received with transaction data by shared token application 140, the parent level token may be identified, and the transaction data may be processed using the parent level token asynchronously without requiring token service provider 150 to issue any tokens.”)
Regarding Claim 4, Sarin, Eisonson and Mar disclose the device of claim 1.
the different pseudo part numbers are generated in accordance with a predetermined generation rule; and
See prior art rejection of claim 3.
the processor is further configured to notify an external platform of the predetermined generation rule.
Sarin discloses a party may be notified of a trust score determination. (Sarin, para 0059, “
Additionally, the trusted contacts may be determined by calculating the score and comparing the score to a threshold required to be a trusted contact of the user. Once trusted contacts are determined for the user, at step 408, a parent level payment token request is placed by service provider server 130 with token service provider 150 in a background operation and automatically for the users, such as a user A associated with first user device 110 and a user B (e.g., a user associated with second user device 120 in system 100 of FIG. 1).”)
Claims 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarin 20200210997
In view of Eisenson 20060195562 in view of Mar in view of
Olden, “IDGenerator: unique identifier generator for epidemiologic or clinical studies”, 2016, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12874-016-0222-3
Regarding Claim 5, Sarin, Eisonson and Mar disclose the device of claim 1.
wherein: the processor is further configured to obtain a list of numbers that are already assigned to the target product on an external platform; and
the different pseudo part numbers are generated such that the different pseudo part numbers do not overlap any of the numbers included in the list.
Olden is directed to a system for creating identifiers in scientific studies. (Olden, abstract). Olden discloses that it is known for ID generation software to consider existing assigned IDs in order to create non-overlapping new IDs. (Olden, p.2, “We developed a software program that guarantees
unique IDs, supports the generation of structured IDs to
facilitate study organization, provides layered IDs to enhance
data protection, and can extend existing IDs with
new non-overlapping batches. While IDGenerator was
originally developed for the needs of the AugUR study
[13], it allows for different parametrization and therefore
can be applied to epidemiological studies with different
requirements. “) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to combine Sarin, Eisonson and Mar with the ID generator of Olden with the motivation of generating unique IDs. Id.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLEN C CHEIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7985. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am -5pm.
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, Florian Zeender can be reached at (571) 272-6790. 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.
/ALLEN C CHEIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627