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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed to a “system” (i.e., a machine) and claim 11 is directed to a “method” (i.e., a process), hence the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). In other words, Step 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
The independent claim recite the following limitations:
Per Claim 1:
“A system for analyzing transfer data in a digital gaming environment, comprising: a database configured to store transfer data associated with user accounts of the digital gaming environment; and processing circuitry configured to:
retrieve transfer data from the database, wherein the transfer data comprises data relating to a series of transfers between a first user account and a second user account;
calculate an expected transfer value of the series of transfers between the first user account and the second user account, wherein calculating the expected transfer value is based on a first probability of an event outcome in the digital gaming environment;
compare the expected transfer value with an actual transfer value of each transfer in the series of transfers between the first user account and the second user account; and
upon determining that the actual transfer value deviates from the expected transfer value by a first threshold amount, flag the series of transfers and communicate the flagged series of transfers between the first user account and the second user account back to the database.”
Per Claim 11:
“A method for analyzing transfer data in a digital environment comprising: retrieving transfer data from a database configured to store transfer data associated with user accounts of the digital environment, wherein the transfer data comprises data relating to a series of transfers between a first user account and a second user account;
calculating an expected transfer value the series of transfers between the first user account and the second user account, wherein calculating the expected transfer value is based on a first probability of an event outcome in the digital environment;
comparing the expected transfer value with an actual transfer value of each transfer in the series of transfers between the first user account and the second user account; and
upon determining that the actual transfer value deviates from the expected transfer value by a first threshold amount, flagging the series of transfers and communicate the flagged series of transfers between the first user account and the second user account back to the database.”
The non-highlighted sections of the above limitations, as drafted, define a process, that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than the recitation of a “database” and “processing circuitry”, nothing in the above limitations precludes the step from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, but for the recited language, the limitations above encompass observing transfer data; determining an expected value for the transfer data; determining if said expected value deviates from an anticipated value; and flag the data depending on the prior determination.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), then it falls within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Hence, the limitations of independent claims 1 and 15 are drawn to an abstract ides of “determining if an expected value for a series of transfer data deviates from the actual value for said series of data” which falls within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas in terms of concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), as per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. In other words, Step 2A, Prong 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Furthermore, the Applicant’s claimed elements of “database” and “processing circuitry” are merely claimed to generally link the use of a judicial exception (e.g., pre-solution activity of data gathering and post-solution activity of presenting data) to (1) a particular technological environment or (2) field of use, per MPEP §2106.05(h); and are applying 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, per MPEP §2106.05(f). In other words, the claimed abstract idea of “identifying cognitive deterioration in a subject” is not providing a practical application, thus Step 2A, Prong 2 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
Furthermore, the claimed “database” (as described in para [0048]-[0049]) and “processing circuitry” (as described in para [0050]) are reasonably interpreted as generic hardware and provide no details of anything beyond its use as ubiquitous standard equipment. Therefore, Step 2B, of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
Claims 2-10 are dependent from claim 1, and claims 12-20 are dependent from claim 11. These dependent claims include all the limitations of the independent claim and therefore recite the same abstract idea. The limitations of the dependent claims fails to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For Example:
The limitations of claims 2, 4, 12, and 14 denote additional variables considered when generating the expected transfer value. As such, these claims merely recite how the data is gathered and analyzed and is therefore insignificant extra-solution activity. The limitations fail to provide any teaching that integrates the judicial exceptions into a practical application or amounts to significantly more than a judicial exception. For this reason, the analysis performed on the independent claims is also applicable on these claims.
The limitations of claims 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 13, 15, 17, 18, and 20 denote additional variables that may analyzed to determine if a group of data is to be flagged. As such, these claims merely recite how the data is gathered and analyzed and is therefore insignificant extra-solution activity. The limitations fail to provide any teaching that integrates the judicial exceptions into a practical application or amounts to significantly more than a judicial exception. For this reason, the analysis performed on the independent claims is also applicable on these claims.
The limitations of claims 6 and 16 clarify the types of merely recites the type of data recorded by the system. The limitations fail to provide any teaching that integrates the judicial exceptions into a practical application or amounts to significantly more than a judicial exception. For this reason, the analysis performed on the independent claims is also applicable on this claims.
Independent claims 1 and 11 do not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Additionally, dependent claims 2-9 and 12-20 recite abstract idea without significantly more and are not drawn to eligible subject matter. Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory 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 (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.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 11, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda (Document ID US 20150157942 A1; 2015-06-11) in view of Chari et al. (Document ID US 20170140382 A1; 2017-05-18).
Regarding claim 1, Ikeda teaches
A system for analyzing transfer data in a digital gaming environment (Abstract), comprising: a database configured to store transfer data associated with user accounts of the digital gaming environment (Para. [0033], shows that the system may store relevant data on a database server; Para. [0077] and figure 8, show that data stored may include exchange request information, i.e. transfer data); and processing circuitry configured to: retrieve transfer data from the database, wherein the transfer data comprises data relating to a series of transfers between a first user account and a second user account (Para. [0079] and figure 8, show that the transfer data may be between a first and second user, i.e. the first and second user accounts, and may comprise a number of different transfers, i.e. a series of transfers); calculate an expected transfer value of the series of transfers between the first user account and the second user account (Para. [0010], shows that the system generates a predetermined value to each traded item, i.e. the expected value); compare the expected transfer value with an actual transfer value of each transfer in the series of transfers between the first user account and the second user account (Para. [0081]-[0082], show that the predetermined value, i.e. the expected value, is compared to a rarity value, i.e. the actual trade value); and upon determining that the actual transfer value deviates from the expected transfer value by a first threshold amount, flag the series of transfers and communicate the flagged series of transfers between the first user account and the second user account back to the database (Para. [0081]-[0082] and figure 8, show that when the difference between the predetermined value, i.e. the expected value, and rarity value, i.e. the actual trade value, is greater that a threshold value, the transfer is flagged).
Ikeda fails to explicitly teach:
wherein calculating the expected transfer value is based on a first probability of an event outcome in the digital gaming environment.
Chari et al. teaches:
wherein calculating the expected transfer value is based on a first probability of an event outcome in the digital gaming environment (Para. [0041] and [0060], show that the fraudulent transaction identifier identifies fraudulent transaction by generating a score for the current transaction, i.e. an expected transfer value, based on the probability that an edge exists between two account vertices, i.e. the likelihood of a transaction occurring; para. [0042]-[0044], [0047], [0065], and [0119] further show that the system may perform its analysis and flagging on a series of transactions).
It would be obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for someone of
ordinary skill to apply the known techniques of Chari et al., regarding its methodology of fraud detection, to the similar device of Ikeda, a system that utilizes user accounts in a trading card game and analysis player trading to detect fraudulent activity, to yield the predictable result of producing a robust fraud detection system. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motived to incorporate the known technique of Chari et al. with the similar device of Ikeda as factoring in the odds of a transaction occurring, i.e. the probability that an edge exists between two account nodes, would allow for a more nuanced approach then simply gauging the relative values of the things being transferred. For example, there may be a reasonable number of times that a player would trade rare card for a more common card that might better be reflected by gauging probability of this transfer occurring, so it may be effective to include the odds of this trade happening when making a flagging determination as opposed to simply flagging all card trades with a large rarity discrepancy as potentially fraudulent.
Regarding claim 4, Ikeda further teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine the first probability by: determining, within the series of transfers between the first user account and the second user account a second probability of a transfer gain of the first user account minus a transfer loss of the second user account, and a third probability of a transfer gain of the second user account minus a transfer loss of the first user account; calculating the first probability based on the second and third probabilities; and adjusting the expected transfer value based on the first probability (Para. [0010] and para. [0082], shows that the relative value of the items being traded between the users, i.e. the potential transfer gain/loss for east of the involved users, is considered when determining the predetermined value, i.e. the expected transfer value).
Regarding claim 6, Ikeda further teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: communicate details of the flagged series of transfers, the first user account, and the second user account to one or more other databases associated with the digital gaming environment (Para. [0079], shows that data, such as the two users involved and the traded items, regarding flagged transfers are stores; Para. [0106], shows that the stored data may be stored in a plurality of memories dispersed and arranged in a plurality of apparatuses).
Regarding claims 11, 14, and 16, they are mirrored claims to claims 1, 4, and 6 respectively and are rejected in like manner.
Claims 2, 3, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda (Document ID US 20150157942 A1; 2015-06-11) in view of Chari et al. (Document ID US 20170140382 A1; 2017-05-18) and in further view of Lin et al. (Document ID US 20210035106 A1; 2021-02-04).
Regarding claim 2, Ikeda teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: retrieve transfer data from the database, wherein the transfer data comprises a series of transfers between the first user account and the second user account via one or more other user accounts; calculate an expected transfer value between each pair of user accounts in the series of transfers (Para. [0079] and figure 8, show that the transfer data may be between a first a second user, i.e. the first and second user accounts, and may comprise a number of different transfers, i.e. a series of transfers), compare the expected transfer value with actual transfer values of the series of transfers occurring between the first user account and the second user account (Para. [0081]-[0082], show that the predetermined value, i.e. the expected value, is compared to a rarity value, i.e. the actual trade value); and upon determining the actual transfer values deviate from the expected transfer value by a second threshold amount, flag the series of transfers and communicate details of the first user account and the second user account back to the database (Para. [0081]-[0082] and figure 8, show that when the difference between the predetermined value, i.e. the expected value, and rarity value, i.e. the actual trade value, is greater that a threshold value, the transfer is flagged).
Ikeda fails to explicitly teach:
Wherein the transfer data comprises a series of transfers between the first user account and the second user account via one or more other user accounts. Calculate an expected transfer value between each pair of user accounts in the series of transfers, based on a second probability of an event outcome in the digital gaming environment.
Lin et al. teaches:
Wherein the transfer data comprises a series of transfers between the first user account and the second user account via one or more other user accounts (Para. [0041]-[0044] and figure 4, show that transfers between the first and second user accounts that utilize a common intermediate user are considered). Calculate an expected transfer value between each pair of user accounts in the series of transfers, based on a second probability of an event outcome in the digital gaming environment (Para. [0064] and [0072], show that an additional probability is considered besides the chance of a link existing between the first account and a second account present in Chari et al., the probability of a link existing between the first and second account given the number of intermediary and direct links; Para. [0065], further shows that several threshold values may be considered when determining if a flagged transaction is fraudulent).
It would be obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for someone of
ordinary skill to apply the known techniques of Lin et al., regarding its methodology of fraud detection, to the similar device of Ikeda, a system that utilizes user accounts in a trading card game and analysis player trading to detect fraudulent activity, to yield the predictable result of producing a robust fraud detection system. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motived to incorporate the known technique of Lin et al. with the similar device of Ikeda as the addition of these techniques allow for the detection of fraudulent transfers that take place with intermediary accounts.
Regarding claim 3, Lin et al. further teaches:
The system of claim 2, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: in response to determining that the actual transfer values deviate from the expected transfer value by the second threshold amount, identify an interaction between the one or more other user accounts in the series of transfers (Fig. 5, para. [0045]-[0047], and para. [0071] show the identification of an interaction between the one or more other accounts in the series of transfers, i.e. the links between other user 220g and other user 220k as well as the link between other user 220b and other user 220h); and in response to identifying the interaction, communicate details of the interaction back to the database (Para. [0046]-[0050] and [0072] shows that the server is given access to the data regarding these links, i.e. details of the interactions).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, they are mirrored claims to claims 2 and 3 respectively and are rejected in like manner.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda (Document ID US 20150157942 A1; 2015-06-11) in view of Chari et al. (Document ID US 20170140382 A1; 2017-05-18) and in further view of Kim et al. (Document ID US 20170140382 A1; 2017-05-18).
Regarding claim 5, Ikeda fails to explicitly teach:
The system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: identify a transfer within the transfer data where the transfer consists only of the first user account, wherein the transfer occurs into and subsequently out of the first user account without any participation in an event associated with the digital gaming environment; and in response to identifying the transfer, communicate details of the transfer and the first user account back to the database.
Regarding claim 5, Kim et al. teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: identify a transfer within the transfer data where the transfer consists only of the first user account, wherein the transfer occurs into and subsequently out of the first user account without any participation in an event associated with the digital gaming environment; and in response to identifying the transfer, communicate details of the transfer and the first user account back to the database (Para. [0123]-[0124], shows the transfer of assets out of a single user account with participation in the game environment; Para. [0089] and [0125]-[0127], further shows that such data is transferred to a database).
It would be obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for someone of
ordinary skill to apply the known techniques of Kim et al., regarding its methodology of fraud detection, to the similar device of Ikeda, a system that utilizes user accounts in a trading card game and analysis player trading to detect fraudulent activity, to yield the predictable result of producing a robust fraud detection system. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motived to incorporate the known technique of Kim et al. with the similar device of Ikeda as accounts that exhibit that patterns searched for by Ki et al. (as denoted in para. [0123]) may be indicative of account/asset theft and it would be advantageous to flag the transfers as potentially fraudulent.
Regarding claim 15 it is a mirrored claim to claim 5 and is rejected in like manner.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda (Document ID US 20150157942 A1; 2015-06-11) in view of Chari et al. (Document ID US 20170140382 A1; 2017-05-18) and in further view of Wang (Document ID US 20170236370 A1; 2017-08-17).
Regarding claim 7, Ikeda fails to explicitly teach
The system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: calculate at least one of: a frequency of transfers within a time period for the series of transfers between the first user account and the second user account; or a total value of transfers within the time period for the series of transfers between the first user account and the second user account; and in response to at least one of the frequency of transfers or the total value of transfers exceeding a respective threshold, flag the series of transfers and communicate details of the first user account and the second user account back to the database.
Wang teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: calculate at least one of: a frequency of transfers within a time period for the series of transfers between the first user account and the second user account; or a total value of transfers within the time period for the series of transfers between the first user account and the second user account (Para. [0040], shows that one of the identified statistics may include a number of game-specific actions over a period of time may be calculated, i.e. total value of transfers within the time period); and in response to at least one of the frequency of transfers or the total value of transfers exceeding a respective threshold, flag the series of transfers and communicate details of the first user account and the second user account back to the database (Para. [0049], shows that if one are more of the parameters exceed a threshold value the account may be flagged).
It would be obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for someone of
ordinary skill to apply the known techniques of Wang, regarding its methodology of fraud detection, to the similar device of Ikeda, a system that utilizes user accounts in a trading card game and analysis player trading to detect fraudulent activity, to yield the predictable result of producing a robust fraud detection system. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motived to incorporate the known technique of Wang with the similar device of Ikeda as tracking if a user making a very large number of transfers in a short period of time, i.e. too many transfers for a human to feasibly preform given the time period, is likely indicative of botting, i.e. fraudulent activity.
Regarding claim 17, it is a mirrored claim to claim 7 and is rejected in like manner.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda (Document ID US 20150157942 A1; 2015-06-11) in view of Chari et al. (Document ID US 20170140382 A1; 2017-05-18) and in further view of Shuster (Document ID WO 2013192113 A1; 2013-12-27) and Boydstun (Document ID US 6839708 B1; 2005-01-04).
Regarding claim 8, Ikeda fails to explicitly teach:
The system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: upon receiving user information for the first user account within the digital gaming environment, perform a hashing process on the user information to generate a hash-based identifier; encrypt the user information to produce an encrypted identifier; determine if the hash-based identifier exists in the database; and in response to determining that the hash-based identifier does not exist in the database, store the encrypted identifier in the database for the first user account.
Shuster teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: upon receiving user information for the first user account within the digital gaming environment, perform a hashing process on the user information to generate a hash-based identifier (Para. [0144], shows that the system creates a checksum which may be a hash of gathered user account information); determine if the hash-based identifier exists in the database; and in response to determining that the hash-based identifier does not exist in the database, store the identifier in the database for the first user account (Para. [0138] and [0146], show that if the checksum does not match an account that is currently in the system, a new account is created to match said checksum; Para. [0137]-[0138], further shows that checksums/hashes associated with the user, i.e. the hash-based identifiers, are stored in the database and that there is user account information associated with each account that is stored in the database).
It would be obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for someone of
ordinary skill to apply the known techniques of Shuster, regarding the utilization of hashed-based identifiers, to the similar device of Ikeda, a system that utilizes user accounts in a trading card game and analysis player trading to detect fraudulent activity, to yield the predictable result of producing a more robust game database. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motived to incorporate the known technique of Shuster with the similar device of Ikeda as the utilization of hashing allows for a deterministic, one-way compression of the user’s identification information which improves both system security and reduces the amount of data needed to store the information in the database.
Boydstun et al. teaches:
encrypt the user information to produce an encrypted identifier; and in response to determining that the hash-based identifier does not exist in the database, store the encrypted identifier in the database for the first user account (Col. 9:13-38, shows that user information is stored in an encrypted form in the registry database).
It would be obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for someone of
ordinary skill to apply the known techniques of Boydstun et al., regarding the encryption of user data in a database, to the similar device of Ikeda, a system that utilizes user accounts in a trading card game and analysis player trading to detect fraudulent activity, to yield the predictable result of producing a more robust game database. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motived to incorporate the known technique of Boydstun et al. with the similar device of Ikeda as encrypting the user data stored in the database reduces the chances of user data getting leaked in the event that a database where to become compromised.
Regarding claim 18, it is a mirrored claim to claim 8 and is rejected in like manner.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda (Document ID US 20150157942 A1; 2015-06-11) in view of Chari et al. (Document ID US 20170140382 A1; 2017-05-18), Shuster (Document ID WO 2013192113 A1; 2013-12-27), and Boydstun (Document ID US 6839708 B1; 2005-01-04) and in further view of Sundaram (Document ID EP 2315417 A1; 2011-04-27).
Regarding claim 9, Ikeda fails to explicitly teach
The system of claim 8, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: upon determining that the hash-based identifier does exist in the database, modify the hash-based identifier by concatenating it with an index to produce an indexed hash-based identifier.
Sundaram teaches:
The system of claim 8, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: upon determining that the hash-based identifier does exist in the database (i.e., a collision occurs), modify the hash- based identifier by concatenating it with an index to produce an indexed hash-based identifier (Para. [0015], teaches that in the case of a collision, the created hash value, i.e. the hash-based identifier, may be concatenated with an additional digit, i.e. an index, to create a valid hash value).
It would be obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for someone of
ordinary skill to apply the known techniques of Sundaram, regarding collision handling, to the similar device of Shuster, a system that performs a hashing process on the user information to generate a hash-based identifier, to yield the predictable result of producing a robust hashing system. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motived to incorporate the known technique of Sundaram with the similar device of Shuster as this would allow for the system to ensure that each hash-based identifier is unique to a given set of identification information.
Regarding claim 19, it is a mirrored claim to claim 9 and is rejected in like manner.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda (Document ID US 20150157942 A1; 2015-06-11) in view of Chari et al. (Document ID US 20170140382 A1; 2017-05-18), Shuster (Document ID WO 2013192113 A1; 2013-12-27), and Boydstun (Document ID US 6839708 B1; 2005-01-04) and in further view of Krishnaiah (Document ID US 20170063840 A1; 2017-03-02).
Regarding claim 10, Ikeda fails to teach:
The system of claim 8, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: compare the user information between the first user account and the second user account, wherein the user information comprises multiple forms of identification; determine if a threshold number of the multiple forms of identification matches between the first user account and the second user account; and in response to determining that the threshold number of the multiple forms of identification matches, communicate details of the first user account and the second user account back to the database (Fig. 3 and para. [0050]-[0057], shows that user information may be compared between different users accounts to determine if these accounts belong to the same person and that these results/details are communicated back to the database).
Krishnaiah teaches:
The system of claim 8, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: compare the user information between the first user account and the second user account, wherein the user information comprises multiple forms of identification; determine if a threshold number of the multiple forms of identification matches between the first user account and the second user account; and in response to determining that the threshold number of the multiple forms of identification matches, communicate details of the first user account and the second user account back to the database (Fig. 3 and para. [0050]-[0057], shows that user information may be compared between different users accounts to determine if these accounts belong to the same person and that these results/details are communicated back to the database).
It would be obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for someone of
ordinary skill to apply the known techniques of Krishnaiah, regarding the determining of different user accounts belonging to the same person, to the similar device of Ikeda, a system that utilizes user accounts in a trading card game and analyses player trading to detect fraudulent activity, to yield the predictable result of producing a more robust fraud detection system. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motived to incorporate the known technique of Krishnaiah with the similar device of Ikeda as this would allow for the system to either ban or investigate all user accounts that belong to a specific person when fraudulent activity is detected on one of the accounts.
Regarding claim 20, it is a mirrored claim to claim 10 and is rejected in like manner.
Summary
No claim is allowed
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC § 103
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY JAMES BULTHUIS whose telephone number is (703)756-1060. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9:30-5:30.
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, Nathaniel Wiehe can be reached on (571)272-8648. 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.
/A.J.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/KANG HU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights