CTFR 18/713,285 CTFR 99801 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims This is a final rejection in response to amended claims filed on 02/27/2026. Claims 1, 3-5, 9-10, 12-14, and 17-19 are amended, and claims 2, 11, and 16 are canceled. Claims 1, 3-10, 12-15, and 17-20 are pending and are examined herein. Priority The claims hold priority to PCT/JP2021/044705 filed on 12/06/2021 which establishes the international filing date of the application as 12/06/2021. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDSes) submitted on 05/24/2024, and 03/11/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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, 3-10, 12-15, and 17-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1: Is the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture, or Composition of Matter? Claims 1, 3-8: An information processing apparatus comprising: at least one memory configured to store one or more instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the one or more instructions to: Claims 9, 12-15: An information processing method comprising, by a computer executing: Claims 10, 17-20: A non-transitory storage medium storing a program causing a computer to... Claims 1, 3-8 are directed to an apparatus with processors and memory devices which is an apparatus claims and falls under at least “machine or manufacture.” Claims 9, 12-15 are directed to a computer-implemented method which falls under “process.” Claim 10, 17-20 is directed to a non-transitory storage medium which falls under at least “manufacture.” Therefore, all of the claims fall under at least one potentially eligible subject matter category and are to be further analyzed under step 2. Step 2a Prong 1: Is the claim directed to a Judicial Exception(A Law of Nature, a Natural Phenomenon (Product of Nature), or An Abstract Idea?) The claims under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification are analyzed herein. Representative claims 1, 9, and 10 are marked up, isolating the abstract idea from additional elements, wherein the abstract idea is in bold and the additional elements have been italicized as follows: Claim 1 Preamble: An information processing apparatus comprising: at least one memory configured to store one or more instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the one or more instructions to: Claim 9 Preamble: An information processing method comprising , by a computer executing: Claim 10 Preamble: A non-transitory storage medium storing a program causing a computer to... Claim 1 Body (also representative of claims 9 and 10 body): Acquire, from a plurality of servers associated with a plurality of types of social networking services (SNSes), public information associated with each of a plurality of accounts existing in each of the plurality of types of SNSes ; Determine, for each SNS, a connection between a plurality of the accounts in each SNS , based on the public information; determine, based on the public information, a plurality of the accounts across the plurality of types of SNSes owned by a same user; and collectively display, as information indicating a connection of a certain user on an SNS, a connection between each of a plurality of the accounts across the plurality of types of SNSes owned by the certain user and another of the accounts, wherein at least one processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to: display a screen showing , as the information indicating the connection of the certain user on the SNS, one node representing a plurality of the accounts across the plurality of types of SNSes owned by the certain user, and a line connecting the one node to nodes of other accounts across the plurality of types of SNSes having a connection with any of the plurality of the accounts across the plurality of types of SNSes owned by the certain user. When evaluating the bolded limitations of the claims under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, it is clear that representative claims 1, 9, and 10 recite an abstract idea within the category of “certain methods of organizing human activity.” More specifically, the present invention falls under the sub-grouping “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” include social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions as outlined in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C). In the instant case, the claims in bold recite steps of “acquiring public information of accounts existing in social networking services, determining a connection between the accounts in each SNS based on the public information, determine plurality of the accounts across the plurality of types of SNSes owned by a same user, display a connection between each of the accounts across the plurality of SNSes owned by the certain user and another of the accounts, display a node representing a plurality of the accounts across the plurality of types of SNSes owned by the certain user, and a line connecting the one node to nodes of other accounts across the plurality of types of SNSes having a connection with any of the accounts across the SNSes owned by the certain user.” These steps clearly fall within the aforementioned sub-grouping because merely recite the steps of collecting public information, and determining the relationship between accounts on a social networking services by evaluating the behaviors and interactions between the accounts, then displays the results of the analysis, which is a social activity. The disclosure, [0009-0010] of the instant specification, addresses the alleged technical problem as follows, “[0009] In recent years, many users own accounts of a plurality of SNSes. Moreover, there is a user who owns a plurality of accounts on one SNS. A technique described in Non-Patent Document 7 merely displays a connection between one account owned by a certain user on one specific SNS and another account. When the user owns a plurality of accounts, display of a technique described in Non-Patent Document 7 merely displays a part of a connection between the user and another user formed by the plurality of accounts. [0010] An object of the present invention is to provide a technique for recognizing a connection between users on an SNS in more detail.” However, it is clear that even this “technical problem” is a management of relationships between people on a social networking platform, which is part of “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Even though the steps recite displaying the information in the form of nodes and lines connecting the certain user to the other nodes based on having a connection, this is merely a way to display the results of the analysis to a person to further manage personal behavior. Outputting information to a user, on its own, still falls within “certain methods of organizing human activity,” because MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) states, “Finally, the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. It is noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping.” Thus, determining the relationships between users on different social networking services, and displaying the results of the analysis to a user to manage their personal behavior, falls within the enumerated sub-grouping “managing personal behavior, interactions, or relationships” between people, therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea under “certain methods of organizing human activity,” and are to be further analyzed under Step 2A Prong 2. Step 2A Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? Claims 1, 9, and 10 recite the following the additional elements: - An information processing apparatus comprising: in claim 1 -at least one memory configured to store one or more instructions ; in claim 1 -at least one processor configured to execute the one or more instructions to: in claim 1 - a computer : in claim 9 - A non-transitory storage medium storing a program causing a computer to... in claim 10 - a plurality of servers associated with a plurality of types of social networking services (SNS) in claims 1, 9, 10 - a screen in claims 1, 9, 10 The additional elements listed above, when considered individually and in combination with the claim as a whole, no more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on generic computing components as outlined in MPEP 2106.05(f). In this case, the abstract idea of “acquiring public information of accounts existing in social networking services, determining a connection between the accounts in each SNS based on the public information, determine plurality of the accounts across the plurality of types of SNSes owned by a same user, display a connection between each of the accounts across the plurality of SNSes owned by the certain user and another of the accounts, display a node representing a plurality of the accounts across the plurality of types of SNSes owned by the certain user, and a line connecting the one node to nodes of other accounts across the plurality of types of SNSes having a connection with any of the accounts across the SNSes owned by the certain user” is merely instructed to be performed on generic computing components such as a memory, processor, computer, servers, screens, and a non-transitory storage medium. It is evident in at least paragraph [0019] of the specification that these computer components are intended to be any computer capable of performing the functions, therefore, no improvement to a computer or a technical field has been implemented in the claims, which is one of the consideration in MPEP 2106.05(a). Even when considering that there are a plurality of servers, there is no particular improvement to how the servers are interacting, as the servers are merely of a source of public information being used. Therefore, the additional elements, whether analyzed individually or as an ordered combination, fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even when considering the claims as a whole. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? Claims 1, 9, and 10 recite the following the additional elements: - An information processing apparatus comprising: in claim 1 -at least one memory configured to store one or more instructions ; in claim 1 -at least one processor configured to execute the one or more instructions to: in claim 1 - a computer : in claim 9 - A non-transitory storage medium storing a program causing a computer to... in claim 10 - a plurality of servers associated with a plurality of types of social networking services (SNS) in claims 1, 9, 10 - a screen in claims 1, 9, 10 The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using generic computing devices such as a memory, processor, computer, a plurality of servers, and screen and a non-transitory storage medium to perform the abstract idea of “acquiring public information of accounts existing in social networking services, determining a connection between the accounts in each SNS based on the public information, determine plurality of the accounts across the plurality of types of SNSes owned by a same user, display a connection between each of the accounts across the plurality of SNSes owned by the certain user and another of the accounts, display a node representing a plurality of the accounts across the plurality of types of SNSes owned by the certain user, and a line connecting the one node to nodes of other accounts across the plurality of types of SNSes having a connection with any of the accounts across the SNSes owned by the certain user” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computing components. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus claims 1, 9, and 10 are not patent eligible because the claims are directed to an abstract without significantly more. Dependent claims 3-8, 12-15, and 17-20 are also given the full two part analysis, with the additional elements being considered individually and in an ordered combination as a whole, resulting in the following determinations. Claims 3, 4, 12, 13, 17, and 18 further limit the abstract idea by adding the steps of estimating an activity area of a user of an account, grouping accounts based on the activity area (and on a map), and displaying the nodes for each group on the screen(on a map). This is reciting more of the same abstract idea as the independent claims because it is still “managing the personal behavior, relationships, and interactions between people,” whilst factoring the location and displaying the results on a screen or a map. When considering the screen as an additional element, similar to claims 2, 11, and 16, it is merely an example of instructing the abstract idea to be performed on generic computing components as outlined in MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, this additional element, even considered individually or in combination with the additional elements of the representative claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Moreover, nothing in these claims as a whole provides significantly more to the abstract idea, therefore claims 3, 4, 12, 13, 17, and 18 are still patent ineligible for being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 5, 14, and 19 further the limit the abstract idea by adding a display element of “ set thickness of a line connecting the two nodes to thickness according to a distance between the activity areas of a user of the account. ” This is more of the same abstract idea since it merely recites how the results of the abstract idea are to be displayed, without changing the original abstract idea steps. Since there are no additional elements to be considered, and the claims as a whole fail to provide significantly more, claims 5, 14 and 19 are patent ineligible. Claims 6, 7, 15, and 20 further limit the abstract idea by allowing a specific time period to be specified and performing the steps of estimating and displaying based on information published within the time period. Indicating a specific time period to perform the abstract idea of “managing personal behavior, interactions, or relationships between people,” is still a recitation of the same abstract idea because it merely limits the formatting of the data used to perform the abstract idea. Furthermore, the additional elements of a screen, even when considering that it receives input and displays data, is still an example of “apply it” or mere instructions to perform the abstract idea on a generic computing device. Therefore, this additional element, even considered individually or in combination with the additional elements of the representative claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Moreover, nothing in these claims as a whole provides significantly more to the abstract idea, therefore claims 6, 7, 15, and 20 are still patent ineligible for being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 8 merely further limits the abstract idea by adding the step of “ display(ing)... a mark indicating an SNS...and a display mode of the mark changes according to the utilization frequency of the SNS. ” This is more of the same abstract idea since it is merely a display of information, particularly indicating a user’s personal behavior on a social networking service, which is still “ managing personal behavior, interactions, or relationships between people.” Since there are no additional elements to be considered, and the claims as a whole fail to provide significantly more, claim 8 is patent ineligible. Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1, 3, 4, 9, 10, 12, 13, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nair et al. (US 9787662 B1), in view of Korula et al. (US 9098819 B1) hereinafter Korula, further in view of Forensic Focus (NPL, 2019, Forensic Focus, “How to Use Social Graph in Oxygen Forensic Detective,” https://www.forensicfocus.com/articles/how-to-use-social-graph-in-oxygen-forensic-detective/) hereinafter Forensic . Regarding Claims 1, 9, 10: Nair discloses an interface for displaying social network users and their connection as nodes including accounts owned by the same user. Nair teaches: Claim 1 Preamble: An information provision apparatus comprising: at least one memory configured to store one or more instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the one or more instructions to (Nair [Col. 7 Lines 32-38] In an embodiment, each of the processes described in connection with the functional blocks of FIG. 3 may be implemented using one or more computer programs, other software elements, and/or digital logic in any of a general-purpose computer or a special-purpose computer, while performing data retrieval, transformation and storage operations that involve interacting with and transforming the physical state of memory of the computer.) Claim 9 Preamble: An information provision method comprising, by a computer executing: (Nair [Col. 2 Lines 32-34] In an embodiment, a programmatic method enables querying an Internet Protocol (IP) address or member user identifier associated with an online social network. [Col. 3 Lines 37-43] FIG. 1 depicts an example computer-based system 100 in which the techniques described may be practiced, according to some embodiments. The various components of system 100 are implemented at least partially by hardware at one or more computing devices, such as one or more hardware processors executing instructions stored in one or more memories for performing various functions described herein.) Claim 10 Preamble: A non-transitory storage medium storing a program causing a computer to: (Nair [Col. 21 Lines 13-23] According to one embodiment, the techniques herein are performed by computer system 800 in response to processor 804 executing one or more sequences of one or more instructions contained in main memory 806. Such instructions may be read into main memory 806 from another storage medium, such as storage device 810. Execution of the sequences of instructions contained in main memory 806 causes processor 804 to perform the process steps described herein. In alternative embodiments, hard-wired circuitry may be used in place of or in combination with software instructions.) Claim 1 Body (Also representative of claims 9 and 10): - acquire information associated with each of a plurality of accounts existing in each of a plurality of types of social networking services (SNSes); (Nair [Col. 2 Line 32 – Col. 3 Line 8] In an embodiment, a programmatic method enables querying an Internet Protocol (IP) address or member user identifier associated with an online social network. In response to the query, dynamic and interactive graphical query results are provided to facilitate analysis of a variety of information about the queried IP address or member user identifier for customer support and/or security purposes... The provided information includes, but is not limited to, one, two, or more of: one or more user account identifiers, one or more electronic mail addresses associated with a user account, a user account activity status, a user account restriction status, an IP address associated with user account registration... (13) In an embodiment, query results corresponding to a queried member user identifier includes information about a user account associated with the member user identifier and/or one or more user accounts deemed to be connected to the queried member user identifier based on a same web browser identifier. The provided information includes, but is not limited to, one, two, or more of: connection information between the user account corresponding to the member user identifier and each of the connected user accounts, user account information associated with the member user identifier, user account information associated with each of the connected user accounts, account restriction status information, account creation information, account access geographical information, account content accessed history information, account identifier, account contact information, or additional information about a particular attribute of the user account associated with the member user identifier (e.g., page views, summary of page views, first degree connections).) In Nair, information about a plurality of users from different social media networks is sourced, therefore, the claim limitations are met. - determine, for each SNS, a connection between a plurality of the accounts in each SNS , based on the information; (Nair [Col. 2 Line 57- Col. 3 Line 1] In an embodiment, query results corresponding to a queried member user identifier includes information about a user account associated with the member user identifier and/or one or more user accounts deemed to be connected to the queried member user identifier based on a same web browser identifier. The provided information includes, but is not limited to, one, two, or more of: connection information between the user account corresponding to the member user identifier and each of the connected user accounts, user account information associated with the member user identifier, user account information associated with each of the connected user accounts,) - determine, based on the information, a plurality of the accounts owned by a same user; (Nair [Col. 19 Lines 8-15] In FIGS. 7B-7C, three different user accounts are associated with the same image/photo (first group 712) and at least six different user accounts are associated with the same image/photo (second group 714). Use of the same image/photo or same person depicted in the images/photos across multiple user accounts supports a conclusion that the user actually associated with those user accounts is the same person. [Col. 19 Lines 47-56] For example, if a large number of user accounts are registered within a relatively same time period, from a same place, and the email addresses for the respective newly registered user accounts are similar to each other (e.g., john1@yahoo.com, john2@yahoo.com, john3@yahoo.com), such activity is indicative of a single person or entity creating user accounts potentially for unauthorized purposes. There would be no normal reason for a person to create multiple user accounts within a relatively same time period.) - And collectively display, as information indicating a connection of a certain user on an SNS, a connection between each of a plurality of the accounts owned by the certain user and another of the accounts. (Nair [Col. 14 Lines 6-24] The connection graph section 614 visually specifies the user accounts that were accessed from the same browser identifier, within the specified date range, as each of the respective received member user identifiers. Screen 610 illustrates four connection graphs (also referred to as circle spoke charts or spoke diagrams), one for each of the four member user identifiers received in block 502. In each of the connection graphs, an icon representative of a member user identifier received in block 502 is positioned in the center, denoted as a person icon inside a circle, with a full name or registered name associated with the member user identifier provided next to the circle. Radiating outward from the center, each user account that was also accessed using the same browser identifier as the user account in the center is denoted by a person icon with the associated member user’s full name or registered name provided next to the person icon. A line or “spoke” between the center icon and each of the respective outer icons denotes the connection between each pair of user accounts.) See also Fig. 6B for the display of connections between the plurality of accounts owned by the certain user and other accounts. - at least one processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to: display a screen showing, as the information indicating the connection of the certain user on the SNS, (Nair [Col. 15 Lines 42-50] The latest set of user accounts nodes may be referred to as belonging to depth 2. Each successive expansion of user accounts set from the originating/starting user account may thus be assigned successive depth values. Hence, if a depth of one is specified (or set by default) for the number of depth filtering element 622, then only user accounts that are one connection or node from the originating/starting user account are presented, such as depicted in connection graph section 614 of FIG. 6B.) However, Nair does not teach: -the information in the “acquire information” step, and the determining steps is “public information” (Nair only teaches the use of private information such as IP address.) -acquire, from a plurality of servers associated with a plurality of types of social networking services (SNSes) - that the determine step is for a plurality of the accounts across the plurality of types of SNSes owned by a same user; -that the connection between each of a plurality of the accounts is across the plurality of types of SNSes - one node representing a plurality of the accounts across the plurality of types of SNSes owned by the certain user, and - a line connecting the one node to nodes of other accounts across the plurality of types of SNSes having a connection with any of the plurality of the accounts across the plurality of types of SNSes owned by the certain user. Alternatively, Korula discloses a system for determining matching pairs between social networks, including generate candidate pairs of accounts from different social networks that may represent the same user. Korula teaches: - acquire public information associated with each of a plurality of accounts existing in each of a plurality of types of social networking services (SNSes); (Korula [Col. 7 Lines 19-28] In some instances, the account retrieval engine 204 requests social data from one or more social network servers 101. In some instances the social data is publicly available information. In some instances, the user consents to the user of such data being retrieved. The social data includes any type of account information from the social networks. For example, the account information includes full user names (including synonyms or nicknames for matching), account names, a list of contacts for users in each social network, social graphs 110 and known matches between social networks.) - determine a connection between a plurality of the accounts, based on the public information; (Korula [Col. 4 Line 59 – Col. 5 Line 5] The search engine 141 queries the matching module 103a for social network account information to include in search results. For example, a first user submits a search query to the search engine 141. The search engine 141 retrieves search results that match the search query. The search engine 141 also queries the matching module 103a for social network account information that matches the first user’s search query, for example, posts made by users that share a first-degree connection with the first user. The search engine 141 combines the social network account information with the search results so that the first user can see subject to the other users’ consent, for example, whether other users in the social network approve of a website, have checked-in at a particular location, have posted images of an activity, etc.) - determine, based on the public information, a plurality of the accounts owned by a same user; (Korula [Col. 4 Lines 1-13] The social graph 110a is a mapping of all users, for example, users 125a . . . 125n, in a social network and how they are related to each other. Additionally, a social graph 110a may define links between an account on a first social network and an account on a second social network. The links may be explicitly generated to indicate that the two accounts represent the same user 125n. For example, users 125a . . . 125n may have accounts for any number of social networks provided by social network servers 101a . . . 101n. A user 125a that has an account for a first social network may provide information to the first social network that the user 125a also has another account on a second social network.) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Nair by adding the use of solely publicly available information such as posts, comments, uploading of media, as taught by Korula to perform the determination of connections and accounts owned by the same user. By substituting the use of private information in Nair to the use of public information in Korula, one would arrive at the predictable outcome of acquiring public information and determining the connections between plurality of accounts and those owned by the same user using public information. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated by the benefit of enhancing the user experience by interconnecting their social accounts from different platforms. (Korula [Col. 1 Lines 12-23] Many users choose to have accounts on multiple social networks. Many social networks provide a feature to the user for explicitly connecting one account on a social network to another account on another social network. By connecting the accounts, the user increases the social circle of each account and an enhanced user experience may be provided to the user. However, many users do not connect their accounts on social networks, for example, because they are new to a social network or are unaware that there is a mechanism for connecting their accounts. Thus, the enhanced user experience may not be provided to the users who do not have their accounts connected.) However, neither Nair nor Korula teach or suggest: - that the determine step is for a plurality of the accounts across the plurality of types of SNSes owned by a same user; -that the connection between each of a plurality of the accounts is across the plurality of types of SNSes - one node representing a plurality of the accounts across the plurality of types of SNSes owned by the certain user, and - a line connecting the one node to nodes of other accounts across the plurality of types of SNSes having a connection with any of the plurality of the accounts across the plurality of types of SNSes owned by the certain user. Alternatively, Forensic discloses a guide for how to a program called “Oxygen Forensic Training Department” which is a social graph forensic interface tool that allows a user to map social relationships between users, whilst linking all of the associated accounts under a single person. Forensic teaches: - that the determine step is for a plurality of the accounts across the plurality of types of SNSes owned by a same user; (Forensic [Page 5] “I’m going to take a look at her full profile...The full name is Alison Kelly...Here’s an email address...a facebook ID...a phone number...a Twitter profile...an account name...an ID, an ID, an ID... (See Page 5 image which shows the various SNS accounts owned by the same user). [Page 7] Detective is determining what it’s merging together as far as contacts or not. [Page 8] There are merge rules; phone number, or account, or email address are the things – the criteria – that Detective would be using to merge together different things, different players, maybe different Alisons, so to speak. [Page 11] Now that I have them all selected, I’m going to go ‘Merge contacts’ and ‘Merge selected contacts.’ Now look. Now I’ve got one Alison, and all of these different representations of Alison, and the clients, tools, or application she’s using...(see image on Page 11). -that the connection between each of a plurality of the accounts is across the plurality of types of SNSes ( Forensic [Page 11] I’ve got all the Alisons together as one Alison... I am concerned with the fact that Alison is talking to Stephen Bremer. I don’t care what particular client they were using at this point – I can go figure that out, if I need to... [Page 12] So if I turn on the Communication view, I can click on those 84 messages and see them in the communication view. Or maybe it was Wonder Girls; there’s one communication between Wonder Girls and Alison. Or John Andders, there’s one there. Or gettaxi, there’s one there. (See image on Page 12 which shows all the connections to Alison from a plurality of different account types ,) [Page 17] Maybe I don’t want to include Viber. Maybe I don’t want to include Skype. Now I can start filtering backward, and filtering things out of the conversation I’m not interested. So I’ve got... Barbara, Stephen, the Weekend plans group. The gettaxi stuff, Team Snapchat, and Angela. (See image on Page 17)) - one node representing a plurality of the accounts across the plurality of types of SNSes owned by the certain user, and (Forensic [Page 12] ( See image on page 12, showing Alison as a node, with the different social media ID’s listed within the Node (Facebook ID, Instagram ID, Skype ID etc)) - a line connecting the one node to nodes of other accounts across the plurality of types of SNSes having a connection with any of the plurality of the accounts across the plurality of types of SNSes owned by the certain user. ( Forensic [Page 12] See the image on page 12 that shows all of the connections between the certain user, across the plurality of types of SNS. [Page 7] See the image on page 7 for reference which shows the nodes, before the certain user was merged into a singular node, the connections between Alison and the nodes, and the other accounts which were previously separate on page 7, are now merged together on Page 12. [Page 15] The image on page 15 displays Alison as a node, and the other account nodes connected via a line. [Page 16-20] Also see the images on pages 16 – 20 which all satisfy the limitation above. ) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to further modify Nair, by adding the determination of a same user across multiple platforms, determine the connections across multiple platforms, display a node representing the plurality of accounts owned a certain user, and display lines connecting the certain user to the other accounts of plurality of different SNS having a connection to the certain user. By adding these interface features taught by Forensic, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the invention, because it would be predictable given that the information sourced by Nair and Korula would merely be displayed in the interface taught by Forensic. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform this combination by the benefit of Forensic’s system to turn complicated case data into a format that a user can understand. (Forensic [Page 3] Detective will merge those accounts for the user of that profile – the user of the device – as the extraction data is turned into case data for you utilise.) Regarding Claims 3, 12, 17: The combination of Nair, Korula, and Forensic teach or suggest: Claim 3 Preamble: The information provision apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to Claim 12 Preamble: The information provision method according to claim 9, wherein the computer Claim 17 Preamble: The non-transitory storage medium according to claim 10, wherein the program causing the computer to Furthermore, Nair teaches Claim 3 Body (Also representative of claims 12 and 17): - estimate, based on the information, an activity area of a user of the account, and (Nair [Col. 6 Lines 5-8] Access or activity information includes, but is not limited to, time and date stamp of each access, geographical location of each access, IP address associated with each access,) - group a plurality of the accounts, , (Nair [Col. 18 Line 62- Col. 19 Line 7] Duplication among the images/photos is presented by the visualization component 204, as depicted in an example screenshot or screen 710 in FIGS. 7B-7C. Images/photos deemed to be duplicative or identical to each other are grouped and displayed together, such as in a first group 712 and a second group 714.) - and collectively display the node for each group on the screen. (Nair [Col. 18 Line 62- Col. 19 Line 7] Duplication among the images/photos is presented by the visualization component 204, as depicted in an example screenshot or screen 710 in FIGS. 7B-7C. Images/photos deemed to be duplicative or identical to each other are grouped and displayed together, such as in a first group 712 and a second group 714. For each image/photo in the first and second groups 712 and 714, at least the image/photo, user name, and MID may be displayed. In some embodiments, an indicator or user input icon may also be included with each image/photo (e.g., a checkbox) in order for the user to confirm duplication, to notate duplications in the user accounts list, and/or to request that duplicative user accounts be removed from the user accounts list.) However, Nair does not teach: -the information in the estimating an activity area of a user of the account step is “public information” (Nair only teaches the use of private information such as IP address.) -that the grouping is based on the activity area. However, Korula teaches: - estimate, based on the public information, an activity area of a user of the account, (Korula [Col. 4 Line 63- Col. 5 Line 5] The search engine 141 also queries the matching module 103a for social network account information that matches the first user’s search query, for example, posts made by users that share a first-degree connection with the first user. The search engine 141 combines the social network account information with the search results so that the first user can see subject to the other users’ consent, for example, whether other users in the social network approve of a website, have checked-in at a particular location, have posted images of an activity, etc. [Col. 7 Lines 5-6] check-ins to different locations and other actions associated with a social network.) The broadest reasonable interpretation of “activity area of a user” is the geographic location in which a user is located performing any sort of activity, therefore by determining the check-in locations, or posted images of an activity, satisfies these limitations. - group a plurality of the accounts, based on the activity area. (Korula [Col. 8 Line 58- Col. 9 Line 8] In another example, the candidate pairing module 206 may use another algorithm that generates a set of pairs by associating contacts of known matching pairs between social networks. In one instance, the candidate pairing module 206 generates a first set of pairs by pairing known matching accounts from a first social network with contacts of the known matching account of the second social network. ... In some instances, the candidate pairs may include pairs that appear frequently in the group. [Col. 6 Line 64 – Col. 7 Line 6] In some instances, the social network engine 202 manages registration of users, creation of a user profile and creation of a social graph 110 that may be stored in the storage 243. The social network engine 202 also manages the association of different actions with the user profile including ... check-ins to different locations and other actions associated with a social network. [Col. 9 Lines 43-50] In other instances, the match determination module 208 determines that contacts match based on the explicit links. In some embodiments, each candidate has a user profile that includes information, such as employers, schools, geographic locations, etc. The match determination module 208 compares the user profiles for the contacts in each social network and generates a score based on the similarity of the user profile information. ) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Nair by adding the use of solely publicly available information such as posts, comments, uploading of media, as taught by Korula to perform the perform a determination of the activity area of a user. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated by the benefit of enhancing the user experience by interconnecting their social accounts from different platforms by finding connections including connections based on location. (Korula [Col. 1 Lines 12-23] Many users choose to have accounts on multiple social networks. Many social networks provide a feature to the user for explicitly connecting one account on a social network to another account on another social network. By connecting the accounts, the user increases the social circle of each account and an enhanced user experience may be provided to the user. However, many users do not connect their accounts on social networks, for example, because they are new to a social network or are unaware that there is a mechanism for connecting their accounts. Thus, the enhanced user experience may not be provided to the users who do not have their accounts connected.) Regarding Claims 4, 13, 18: The combination of Nair, Korula, and Forensic teach or suggest: Claim 4 Preamble: The information provision apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to Claim 13 Preamble: The information provision method according to claim 9, wherein the computer Claim 18 Preamble: The non-transitory storage medium according to claim 10, wherein the program causing the computer to Furthermore, Nair teaches: Claim 4 Body (Also representative of claims 13 and 18): - estimate, based on the information, an activity area of a user of the account, (Nair [Col. 6 Lines 5-8] Access or activity information includes, but is not limited to, time and date stamp of each access, geographical location of each access, IP address associated with each access,) - And display the screen on which the node is displayed on a map, (Nair [Col. 11 Lines 25-35] FIGS. 4F-4I depict an example presentation of IP address(es)-related information, such as the visualization data 412 in FIG. 4B, in conjunction with an interactive map. For instance, if the user actuated the map icon 421 in FIG. 4C, IP address(es)-related information can be provided in a map-centric environment such as shown in FIG. 4F. FIG. 4F depicts an example screen or screenshot 470 comprising a world map denoted with markers 472 at specific geographic locations corresponding to IP address(es) specified by the user. In the example screenshot 470, six different IP addresses are specified and marked.) - and the node is displayed at a position on a map relevant to the activity area. (Nair [Col. 11 Lines 49-59] In addition to accessing IP address-related information as shown in FIG. 4G, the user may also interact with the map to view more details about the geographic location associated with a particular marker 472. For instance, the user can progressively zoom in or out of any portion of the map. FIGS. 4H-4I depict example screens or screenshots 480 and 490 showing progressively more details about the location associated with first marker 476. Note that even in screen 490 of FIG. 4I, a street level depiction of the location associated with first marker 476, the first additional information bubble 477 can be displayed to the user.) However, Nair does not teach: -the information in the estimating is “public information” (Nair only teaches the use of private information such as IP address.) Alternatively, Korula teaches: - estimate, based on the public information, an activity area of a user of the account, (Korula [Col. 4 Line 63- Col. 5 Line 5] The search engine 141 also queries the matching module 103a for social network account information that matches the first user’s search query, for example, posts made by users that share a first-degree connection with the first user. The search engine 141 combines the social network account information with the search results so that the first user can see subject to the other users’ consent, for example, whether other users in the social network approve of a website, have checked-in at a particular location, have posted images of an activity, etc. [Col. 7 Lines 5-6] check-ins to different locations and other actions associated with a social network.) The broadest reasonable interpretation of “activity area of a user” is the geographic location in which a user is located performing any sort of activity, therefore by determining the check-in locations, or posted images of an activity, satisfies these limitations. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Nair by adding the use of solely publicly available information such as posts, comments, uploading of media, as taught by Korula to perform the perform a determination of the activity area of a user. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated by the benefit of enhancing the user experience by interconnecting their social accounts from different platforms by finding connections including connections based on location. (Korula [Col. 1 Lines 12-23] Many users choose to have accounts on multiple social networks. Many social networks provide a feature to the user for explicitly connecting one account on a social network to another account on another social network. By connecting the accounts, the user increases the social circle of each account and an enhanced user experience may be provided to the user. However, many users do not connect their accounts on social networks, for example, because they are new to a social network or are unaware that there is a mechanism for connecting their accounts. Thus, the enhanced user experience may not be provided to the users who do not have their accounts connected.) 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 5, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nair(US 9787662 B1), in view of Korula (US 9098819 B1), further in view of Forensic (NPL, 2019, How to use Social Graph in Oxygen Forensic Detective), further in view of Shalunov et al. (US 20160358214 A1) hereinafter Shalunov Regarding Claims 5, 14, 19: The combination of Nair, Korula, and Forensic teach or suggest: Claim 5 Preamble: The information provision apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to Claim 14 Preamble: The information provision method according to claim 9, wherein the computer Claim 19 Preamble: The non-transitory storage medium according to claim 10, wherein the program causing the computer to Furthermore, Nair teaches Claim 5 Body (Also representative of claims 14 and 19): - estimate, based on the information, an activity area of a user of the account, (Nair [Col. 6 Lines 5-8] Access or activity information includes, but is not limited to, time and date stamp of each access, geographical location of each access, IP address associated with each access,) However, Nair does not teach: -the information in the estimating is “public information” (Nair only teaches the use of private information such as IP address.) Alternatively, Korula teaches: - estimate, based on the public information, an activity area of a user of the account, (Korula [Col. 4 Line 63- Col. 5 Line 5] The search engine 141 also queries the matching module 103a for social network account information that matches the first user’s search query, for example, posts made by users that share a first-degree connection with the first user. The search engine 141 combines the social network account information with the search results so that the first user can see subject to the other users’ consent, for example, whether other users in the social network approve of a website, have checked-in at a particular location, have posted images of an activity, etc. [Col. 7 Lines 5-6] check-ins to different locations and other actions associated with a social network.) The broadest reasonable interpretation of “activity area of a user” is the geographic location in which a user is located performing any sort of activity, therefore by determining the check-in locations, or posted images of an activity, satisfies these limitations. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Nair by adding the use of solely publicly available information such as posts, comments, uploading of media, as taught by Korula to perform the perform a determination of the activity area of a user. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated by the benefit of enhancing the user experience by interconnecting their social accounts from different platforms by finding connections including connections based on location. (Korula [Col. 1 Lines 12-23] Many users choose to have accounts on multiple social networks. Many social networks provide a feature to the user for explicitly connecting one account on a social network to another account on another social network. By connecting the accounts, the user increases the social circle of each account and an enhanced user experience may be provided to the user. However, many users do not connect their accounts on social networks, for example, because they are new to a social network or are unaware that there is a mechanism for connecting their accounts. Thus, the enhanced user experience may not be provided to the users who do not have their accounts connected.) However, neither Nair, Korula, nor Forensic teach or suggest: - set thickness of a line connecting the two nodes to thickness according to a distance between the activity areas of a user of the account. Alternatively, Shalunov discloses the generation of a social graph to be used for social discovery, dating, professional networking, or travel applications. Shalunov teaches: - set thickness of a line connecting the two nodes to thickness according to a distance between the activity areas of a user of the account. (Shalunov [0085] To illustrate, a relatively thick dashed-line arrow connects user 3 and user 5, indicating that they are closed tennis partners. This result could have come about by noting that they are often at the same place, arriving and leaving at the same proximate time, wherein the place has been determined (using Google, OpenStreetMap, Waze, etc.) to be a tennis court. As another example, user 1 and user 3 are connected by a thin solid arrow, indicating that they are work colleagues. This could be arrived at by noting that they are daily at the same location during work hours, where the location is determined to be a business. The arrow is thin, providing graphical indication of low weight, since they may not have any other interaction. The line may be thickened, providing a graphical indication for increased weight when it is determined that they are often at the same restaurant during lunch, when they appear to travel together, either commuting or business trip, etc.) Shalunov as seen in the excerpt above describes connecting two nodes wherein a thicker line indicates a closer proximity (same place, arriving and leaving at the same time), whereas a thinner line indicates a less proximate connection. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the combination to use the thickness of lines to indicate more stronger proximity as taught in Shalunov. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated by the fact that the thickness of lines provides a benefit to the graphical communication of the weights indicated by the graph, thereby improving user experience. (Shalunov [0085]) 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 6-8, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nair(US 9787662 B1), in view of Korula (US 9098819 B1), further in view of Forensic (NPL, 2019, How to use Social Graph in Oxygen Forensic Detective), further in view of Anand et al. (US 20140189530 A1) hereinafter Anand Regarding Claims 6, 15, 20: The combination of Nair, Korula, and Forensic teach or suggest: Claim 6 Preamble: The information provision apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to Claim 15 Preamble: The information provision method according to claim 12, wherein the computer Claim 20 Preamble: The non-transitory storage medium according to claim 17, wherein the program causing the computer to Furthermore, Nair teaches: Claim 6 Body (Also representative of claims 15 and 20): - accept an input specifying a period, (Nair [Col. 17 Lines 42-54] As shown in filtering elements section 644, the data in section 646 can be filtered by a page key or identifier, an operating system used to access a page, and/or a page view count. The page views information section 646 is provided in a table format, each page access associated with the particular user account is shown in a row of the table. If a date range is specified by the user, only the pages accessed during the specified date range are included in the table. For each page accessed, the following information about the page access or view is provided: a start time date stamp, an end time date stamp, a page key or identifier, a page description, an operating system used to access the page, and a page view count.) However, neither Nair, Korula, nor Forensic teach or suggest: - estimate the activity area of a user of the account, based on the public information published within the period, and - perform display of the screen, based on the activity area of a user of the account estimated based on the public information published within the period. Alternatively, Anand - estimate the activity area of a user of the account, based on the public information published within the period, and (Anand [0057] Further, user actions that happened in particular context, such as when the user was shown or was seen accessing particular content on the social networking system 200, are captured along with the particular context and logged. For example, a particular user could be shown/not-shown information regarding candidate users every time the particular user accessed the social networking system 200 for a fixed period of time. Any actions taken by the user during this period of time are logged along with the context information (i.e., candidate users were provided/not provided to the particular user) and are recorded in the action log 216. In addition, a number of actions described below in connection with other objects are directed at particular users, so these actions are associated with those users as well. [0056] The action log 216 may be used by the social networking system 202 to track user actions on the social networking system 202, as well as external website that communicate information to the social networking system 202. Users may interact with various objects on the social networking system 202, including commenting on posts, sharing links, and checking-in to physical locations via a mobile device, accessing content items in a sequence or other interactions. Information describing these actions is stored in the action log 216.) As seen in the excerpt’s above, Anand teaches the limitation because it can constrict the action log to actions taken in a particular time period with context information. Since the action log can also log the physical locations of a user, then the estimation of the activity area of the user is based on public information within the time period. - perform display of the screen, based on the activity area of a user of the account estimated based on the public information published within the period. (Anand [0071] Identifying the user account can include identifying the user account that initiated the user interaction. Identifying the user account can also include identifying the user account involved in the user interaction, either directly or indirectly as described in FIG. 1. Identifying the user account can include identifying that the user account shares one or more attributes that are the same as a different user account, where the different user account is involved in the user interaction. For example, the user account can be at the same location and at the same time as other user accounts that have made explicit social graph connections with the social network page. For another example, the user account can be part of an event, where most other user accounts in the event have checked-in to the social network page. [0075] For example, the weight calculation module 322 can determine the edge weight based on a first location record of the user account and a second location record of the social network page. The weight calculation module 322 can give more weight to the generated implicit social graph connection as the user account residence or current location is closer to the physical location of an entity behind the social network page. [0027] A social networking system may allow a user to enter and display information related to the user’s interests, education and work experience, contact information, and other biographical information in the user’s profile page. Each school, employer, interest (for example, music, books, movies, television shows, games, political views, philosophy, religion, groups, or fan pages), geographical location, network, or any other information contained in a profile page may be represented by a node in the social graph.) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the combination by adding the display of a user’s school. Employer, interest, and geographic location based on public information logged within a particular time period as taught by Anand. By using the time period input in Nair, and logging public information within a time period as taught in Anand, one would arrive at the predictable outcome of estimating the activity area based on public information within a time period and displaying the information on the screen. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated by the benefit of allowing users to find other users with similar interests on the social network using public information. (Anand [0025]) Regarding Claim 7: The combination of Nair, Korula, and Forensic teach or suggest: The information provision apparatus according to claim 1, Furthermore, Nair teaches: wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to - accept an input specifying a period, (Nair [Col. 17 Lines 42-54] As shown in filtering elements section 644, the data in section 646 can be filtered by a page key or identifier, an operating system used to access a page, and/or a page view count. The page views information section 646 is provided in a table format, each page access associated with the particular user account is shown in a row of the table. If a date range is specified by the user, only the pages accessed during the specified date range are included in the table. For each page accessed, the following information about the page access or view is provided: a start time date stamp, an end time date stamp, a page key or identifier, a page description, an operating system used to access the page, and a page view count.) - determine a connection between a plurality of the accounts, based on the information within the period, (Nair [Col. 19 Lines 43-56] By analyzing user account activity over time or based on other attribute, patterns of usage may be discerned, which in turn, permits distinguishing between normal usage and suspicious usage and/or positive security indicators. For example, if a large number of user accounts are registered within a relatively same time period, from a same place, and the email addresses for the respective newly registered user accounts are similar to each other (e.g., john1@yahoo.com, john2@yahoo.com, john3@yahoo.com), such activity is indicative of a single person or entity creating user accounts potentially for unauthorized purposes. There would be no normal reason for a person to create multiple user accounts within a relatively same time period.) However, neither Nair nor Korula, nor Forensic teach or suggest: - that the determine a connection between a plurality of the accounts step is based on the public information published within the period - display, as information indicating a connection of a certain user on an SNS, a connection between the account owned by the certain user determined based on the public information published within the period, and another of the accounts. Alternatively, Anand discloses: - determine a connection between a plurality of the accounts, based on the information within the period (Anand [0029] Social networking systems allow users to associate themselves and establish connections with other users of the social networking system. When two users explicitly establish a connection in the social networking system, they become “friends” (or, “connections”) within the context of the social networking system. Being friends in a social networking system may allow users access to more information about each other than would otherwise be available to unconnected users... Establishing connections, accessing user information, communicating, and interacting within the context of the social networking system may be represented by an edge between the nodes representing two social networking system users. [0057] Further, user actions that happened in particular context, such as when the user was shown or was seen accessing particular content on the social networking system 200, are captured along with the particular context and logged. For example, a particular user could be shown/not-shown information regarding candidate users every time the particular user accessed the social networking system 200 for a fixed period of time. Any actions taken by the user during this period of time are logged along with the context information (i.e., candidate users were provided/not provided to the particular user) and are recorded in the action log 216. In addition, a number of actions described below in connection with other objects are directed at particular users, so these actions are associated with those users as well.) - display, as information indicating a connection of a certain user on an SNS, a connection between the account owned by the certain user determined based on the public information published within the period, and another of the accounts. (Anand [0059] In one embodiment, the edge store 218 stores the information describing connections between users and other objects on the social networking system 202 in edge objects. The edge store 218 can store the social graph described above, such as the social graph 108 of FIG. 1. Some edges may be defined by users, allowing users to specify their relationships with other users. For example, users may generate edges with other users that parallel the users’ real-life relationships, such as friends, co-workers, partners, and so forth. Other edges are generated when users interact with objects in the social networking system 202, such as expressing interest in a page on the social networking system, sharing a link with other users of the social networking system, and commenting on posts made by other users of the social networking system. The edge store 218 stores edge objects that include information about the edge, such as affinity scores for objects, interests, and other users. Affinity scores may be computed by the social networking system 202 over time to approximate a user’s affinity for an object, interest, and other users in the social networking system 202 based on the actions performed by the user. Multiple interactions of the same type between a user and a specific object may be stored in one edge object in the edge store 218, in one embodiment. In some embodiments, connections between users may be stored in the profile store 210, or the profile store 210 may access the edge store 218 to determine connections between users. Users may select from predefined types of connections, or define their own connection types as needed.) In Anand, displaying the edges (real-life relationships) is a display indicating a connection of a certain user and another account, which we know from paragraph [0057] can be based on information recorded in a specified time period. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the combination to determine the connection between a certain user of the social network with another user based on information within a time period, and displaying the information as taught by Anand. By using the time period input in Nair, and logging public information within a time period as taught in Anand, one would arrive at the predictable outcome of determining the user’s connections based on public information within a time period and displaying the information on the screen. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated by the benefit of allowing users to find other users with similar interests on the social network using public information. (Anand [0025]) Regarding Claim 8: The combination of Nair, Korula, and Forensic teach or suggest: The information provision apparatus according to claim 1, Furthermore, Nair teaches: wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to - display, in association with the node, a mark indicating an SNS in which one or a plurality of the accounts relevant to the node exist, and (Nair [Col. 5 Line 21 – Col. 6 Line 11] As discussed in greater detail below, the user interface component 200 provides user interface functionalities to users interfacing with client 108 to enable and receive input of particular data (e.g., member ID or IP address) from a user, trigger determination of visualization data that is responsive to the inputted data, facilitate particular visualization of the visualization data, and the like... Visualization data, or precursors to such data, is obtained from one or more of stores 212-218. (28) User accounts store 212 comprises multiple user account records, each user account record corresponding to a particular registered user or member of an online social network... User accounts access or activity store 214 comprises information about online social network access or activity associated with each of the user accounts specified in the user accounts store 212. Access or activity information includes, but is not limited to, time and date stamp of each access, geographical location of each access, IP address associated with each access, a browser identifier associated with each access, which online social network pages were accessed , history of changes made to user account information (e.g., email address changes), and the like.) Since Nair teaches a visualization component that sources information from user accounts store, and one of the types of information is “which online social network pages were accessed,” then the limitation has been met because it has the BRI of any display indicating which social media page the node is affiliated with. However, neither Nair nor Korula nor Forensic teach or suggest: - a display mode of the mark changes according to utilization frequency of the SNS. Alternatively, Anand teaches : - a display mode of the mark changes according to utilization frequency of the SNS. (Anand [0076] A subsequent interaction (e.g., another check-in action associated with the same page) by the user can increase the weight of the edge between the user account and the social network page. The edge weight in turn can be based on a history of user interactions associated with the user account and the social network page. This enables capturing of the frequency of user interactions with the social network page either directly or indirectly. This adjustment of the edge weight can occur for the same type of interaction. In some embodiments, this adjustment of the edge weight can occur for different types of interactions that are related to the same user account and the same social network object. [0078] The edge weight model can be a function of a frequency of user interactions between the user account of the implicit social graph connection and the social network page of the implicit social graph connection. For a specific example, the edge weight model may be that if the user account gets tagged at or checks-in at the social network page once in a month, the edge weight is 1. The edge weight model can be a non-linear function of frequency of user interaction. [0092] The personalization module 332 can determine the layout by sorting content entries to present or display to the user account. Each of the content entry may have been selected based on a social graph connection, the social graph connection having an edge weight as determined by the weight calculation module 322.) Since the amount of user interaction with a social media page increases the edge weight, and the edge weight changes the display mode, then the limitation has been satisfied. Since the BRI of “mark” is any symbol, character, or string that indicates an SNS, then the limitation has been met. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the combination by adding the changing of a display mode based on the utilization frequency (frequency of interactions with a social network page) as taught by Anand. By modifying the display in Nair by adding the edge weight model of Anand, one would arrive at the predictable outcome of a system which changes the display mode of an SNS based on the utilization frequency. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated by the benefit of allowing users to find other users with similar interests on the social network using public information. (Anand [0025]) Response to Arguments The remarks filed on 02/27/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the following reasons. The applicant’s arguments over claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been considered in view of the amended claims but are not persuasive. The applicant alleges that the amended claim 1 brings about a specific technical improvement in the field of computer technology, namely “improving thoroughness and comprehensibility of connection information for certain users and enhancing display viewability by collating the connection information into a compact display configuration.” However, the claims as amended do not reflect any improvements to user interface technology, as they merely apply the abstract idea on a generic user interface. Therefore, the applicant’s argument, that claim 1 cannot practically be performed in the human mind nor does it recite a method of organizing human activity is not persuasive because the solving “insufficient production and complicated display configurations” does not demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the disclosed invention improves technology. Furthermore, MPEP 2106.05(a) states, “After the examiner has consulted the specification and determined that the disclosed invention improves technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement in technology.” However, given that the additional elements are merely using display screens in their ordinary capacity to display nodes and lines establishing connections, no such improvement is reflected within the scope of the claims. Regarding arguments over step 2A, the applicant alleges that conventional techniques, which involved connections among accounts within a same SNS, were susceptible to the effects of limited information on connections between various users. However, improving the manner in which information is displayed, and the type of information that is displayed, is not an improvement to technology. The improvement lies within the abstract idea (a certain way of displaying connections within a social graph), and the display screen merely carries out the output. MPEP 2106.05(a) states, “Notably, the court did not distinguish between the types of technology when determining the invention improved technology. However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology.” Therefore, the applicant’s argument that ambiguity is eliminated more effectively, allowing the displayed information to be more detailed and useful is not persuasive because this is not a technical improvement in the field of computer technology. The applicant has not provided clear and convincing evidence that the claimed improvements lead to an enhancement in the efficiency of computer-based data processing and data production/display, because the improvements lie in the abstract idea, not to the functionality of the computer. Regarding the applicant’s arguments over step 2B, the applicant alleges that claim 1 does not merely recite data processing and production on a generic computer, and the combination of specific and non-obvious steps amount to more than “well-understood, routine, and conventional.” However, this argument is not persuasive because even when considering the combination of steps, the steps are merely recitations of the abstract idea of “managing personal behavior or interactions between people,” with limited computer technology implemented. Furthermore, the rejection does not rely on an assertion that the claims recite “well-understood, routine or conventional activity” therefore, there is no burden on the examiner to show otherwise. Even when considering that the display steps are recited in a “specific manner,” and allegedly “reduce waste of resources associated with separately displaying each account associated with a certain user,” and “enhancing user interaction by displaying connections in a compact yet comprehensible manner that accounts for connections across various types of SNSes,” these steps still do not meaningfully limit the use of the abstract idea such that it is significantly more. Particularly, the display steps remain broad enough to encapsulate any arrangement of nodes and lines that represent a single user and their various connections. Secondly, the determining steps, merely claim the idea or outcome of determining a plurality of accounts owned by a same user, and their connections, instead of a particular algorithm or mechanism that allows one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at such an outcome. Therefore, the reduction in use of computing resources, is merely inherent to the idea of merging accounts owned by the same user, but the claims themselves do not recite enough particularity to provide or reflect such an improvement. Therefore, the applicant’s argument that the features reflect a specific inventive concept for “building a more reliable and efficient apparatus in the technical field of data/display processing” which allegedly “enables the production of more useful information in an easy-to-digest manner that was difficult with conventional technology” is not persuasive because the claims do not reflect a technical improvement, and any improvement merely lies within the abstract idea. Therefore, claims 1, 3-10, 12-15, and 17-20 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Regarding applicant’s arguments over claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, the applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive in view of the updated rejection, which now includes prior art reference, Forensic Focus, which is relied on to teach “one node representing a plurality of the accounts across the plurality of types of SNSes owned by the certain user,” and “ a line connecting the one node to nodes of other accounts across the plurality of types of SNSes having a connection with any of the plurality of the accounts across the plurality of types of SNSes owned by the certain user.” Therefore, the applicant’s argument that Nair fails to teach the limitations above is moot in view of the combination of Nair, Korula, and Forensic. Thus the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103, for being obvious over the prior art. Conclusion 07-40 AIA Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL . See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 NICO LAUREN PADUA whose telephone number is (703)756-1978. The examiner can normally be reached Mon to Fri: 8:30 to 5:00pm. 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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at (571) 270-3445 . 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. /NICO L PADUA/Junior Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626 /JESSICA LEMIEUX/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626 Application/Control Number: 18/713,285 Page 2 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 18/713,285 Page 3 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 18/713,285 Page 4 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 18/713,285 Page 5 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 18/713,285 Page 6 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 18/713,285 Page 7 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 18/713,285 Page 8 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 18/713,285 Page 9 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 18/713,285 Page 10 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 18/713,285 Page 11 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 18/713,285 Page 12 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 18/713,285 Page 13 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 18/713,285 Page 14 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 18/713,285 Page 15 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 18/713,285 Page 16 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 18/713,285 Page 17 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 18/713,285 Page 18 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 18/713,285 Page 19 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 18/713,285 Page 20 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 18/713,285 Page 21 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 18/713,285 Page 22 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 18/713,285 Page 23 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 18/713,285 Page 24 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 18/713,285 Page 25 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 18/713,285 Page 26 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 18/713,285 Page 27 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 18/713,285 Page 28 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 18/713,285 Page 29 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 18/713,285 Page 30 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 18/713,285 Page 31 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 18/713,285 Page 32 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 18/713,285 Page 33 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 18/713,285 Page 34 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 18/713,285 Page 35 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 18/713,285 Page 36 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 18/713,285 Page 37 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 18/713,285 Page 38 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 18/713,285 Page 39 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 18/713,285 Page 40 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 18/713,285 Page 41 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 18/713,285 Page 42 Art Unit: 3626
Prosecution Insights