Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to: Application filed on July 10th, 2024
This action is made Final.
Claims 1-20 are pending claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 11 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wahl, US# 7,559,085 B1 (hereinafter Wahl) in view of Chestnut, US# 7,143,037 B1 (hereinafter Chestnut).
As for independent claim 1:
Wahl discloses a computer implemented method for modifying designators, the computer implemented method comprising:
identifying, by a processor set, a plurality of designators that have a set of similarity metrics that are within a similarity threshold (2:9-15, Wahl discloses a method for detecting and operates on name designators by translating a target name into a per-character identifier and comparing it against a table of identifiers to detect deceptively similar names, 3:30-42, assigning code to a valid character by which to identify that particular character, see similar domain names would have the same identifier);
Wahl does not discloses modifying, by the processor set, the plurality of designators to form a plurality of modified designators in which the set of similarity metrics for the plurality of modified designators is no longer within the similarity threshold, wherein modifying the plurality of designators comprises identifying a differing part from at least one designator from the plurality of designators, accessing an external source of distinct words, and modifying the different part using a word obtained from the external source, and wherein the differing part is part form the at last one designator that is different from other designators from the plurality of designators. Chestnut discloses modifying, by the processor set, the plurality of designators to form a plurality of modified designators in which the set of similarity metrics for the plurality of modified designators is no longer within the similarity threshold, wherein modifying the plurality of designators comprises identifying a differing part from at least one designator from the plurality of designators, accessing an external source of distinct words, and modifying the different part using a word obtained from the external source, and wherein the differing part is part form the at last one designator that is different from other designators from the plurality of designators in 3:58-65, 5:1-18, 6:12-28, 4:7-23. In the cited section Chestnut discloses where the processor could not tell whether a particular letter is “B” or “D”, the processing plays a prompt asking whether the user said “’B’ as in Bob or ‘D’ as in Doug”. Chestnut further discloses where the processor has identified two possibilities for a word without being able to tell them apart, such as “bear” and “pear”, in which the processor plays a prompt that distinguish the letters asking whether the word started with “‘B’ as in Bob or ‘P” as in Paul”, see 5:12-18. The letter isolated is the part of the designator that differs from the other designator and the distinct word subtitled for its drawn from an external source, see 3:58-61 4:7-23, 6:12-19, each word being associated with its first letter. Chestnut discloses remote components accessing by the processor over a network, source external to the designators being modified. Accordingly it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a skilled artisan to modify the method of Wahl incorporating the teaching of Chestnut teachings of identifying the differing letter between two indistinguishable designators and substituting for it a distinct word obtained from a stored word table, thus providing the system ability to show and render the confusable part of a designator unambitious rather than showing a confusing similarly exist (Chestnut, 5:1-18).
As for dependent claims 11 and 20:Claims 11 and 20 contain substantial subject matter as claimed in claim 1 and are respectfully rejected along the same rationale.
Claims 2, 3, 7-10, 12, 13, 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wahl, US# 7,559,085 B1 (hereinafter Wahl) in view of Chestnut, US# 7,143,037 B1 (hereinafter Chestnut) and in further view of Link, US# 7,421,395 B1 (hereinafter Link).
As for dependent claim 2:
Wahl – Chestnut does not discloses the computer implemented method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of designators comprises a first designator and a second designator and wherein modifying, by the processor set, the plurality of designators comprises: modifying, by the processor set, the first designator and the second designator in the plurality of designators to form the plurality of modified designators in which the set of similarity metrics for the plurality of modified designators is no longer within the similarity threshold. Chestnut, 5:5-8, discloses modifies both members of the confusable part, displaying ‘B’ as “Bob” and ‘D’ as Doug in the same prompt. Link discloses the computer implemented method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of designators comprises a first designator and a second designator and wherein modifying, by the processor set, the plurality of designators comprises: modifying, by the processor set, the first designator and the second designator in the plurality of designators to form the plurality of modified designators in which the set of similarity metrics for the plurality of modified designators is no longer within the similarity threshold in 7:1-11, 5:30-60, 9:23-31, 10:17-24. In the cited sections, Link discloses selecting a word element such as an adjective from a preexisting list and combining it with the name at issue to produce a modified name. Accordingly it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a skilled artisan to modify the method of Wahl – Chestnut incorporate the teaching of Link teachings of modifying from a list of alternatives, thus providing the system with the ability to check name again other names the database, Link, 9:23-31).
As for dependent claim 3:
Wahl – Chestnut discloses the computer implemented method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of designators comprises two designators and wherein modifying, by the processor set, the plurality of designators comprises: modifying, by the processor set, a designator in the plurality of designators to form the plurality of modified designators in which the set of similarity metrics for the plurality of modified designators is no longer within the similarity threshold. Link discloses the computer implemented method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of designators comprises two designators and wherein modifying, by the processor set, the plurality of designators comprises: modifying, by the processor set, a designator in the plurality of designators to form the plurality of modified designators in which the set of similarity metrics for the plurality of modified designators is no longer within the similarity threshold in 5:31-61.and 9: 9-21. In the cited section Link discloses generating component and modifying designators from a list of alternatives. Accordingly it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a skilled artisan to modify the method of Wahl incorporating the teaching of Link teachings of modifying from a list of alternatives, thus providing the system with the ability to check the name again other names the database (Link, 9:23-31).
As for dependent claim 7:
An Official Notice is taken that audible presentation of textual content from text to speech is well known before the effective filing date, thus the limitation: computer implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: audibly presenting, by the processor set, the plurality of modified designators was obvious before the effective filing date.
As for dependent claim 8:
Wahl – Chestnut discloses the computer implemented method of claim 1, wherein the set of similarity metrics represent a visual similarity between the plurality of designators (Wahl, 3:30-42, see similarity metrics and appearance in low resolution font).
As for dependent claim 9:
Wahl – Chestnut-Link discloses the computer implemented method of claim 1, wherein the set of similarity metrics represent a phonetic similarity between the plurality of designators (Link, 5:31-61.and 9: 9-21).
As for dependent claim 10:
Wahl – Chestnut-Link discloses the computer implemented method of claim 1, wherein the set of similarity metrics is at least one of a similarity between at least one of a string similarity metric, a phonetic similarity metric, a Levenshtein distance, a Hamming distance, a Jaro-Winkler distance, a cosine similarity, or a Jaccard similarity (Wahl, 3:30-37, see similarity computation to form identifier and Link 5:31-61).
As for dependent claims 12, 13, 17, 18, 19:Claims 12, 13, 17, 18, 19 contain substantial subject matter as claimed in claims 2, 3, 7, 8, 9 and are respectfully rejected along the same rationale.
Claims 4, 5, 6, 14, 15, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wahl, US# 7,559,085 B1 (hereinafter Wahl) in view of Chestnut, US# 7,143,037 B1 (hereinafter Chestnut) in view of Link, US# 7,421,395 B1 (hereinafter Link) and in further view of Cahill, US# 8,176,430 B1 (hereinafter Cahill).
As for dependent claim 4:
Wahl – Chestnut-Link does not disclose computer implemented method of claim 1, wherein modifying, by the processor set, the plurality of designators comprises: modifying, by the processor set, at least one of a symbol or a color in the plurality of designators to form the plurality of modified designators in which the set of similarity metrics for the plurality of modified designators is no longer within the similarity threshold. Cahill discloses computer implemented method of claim 1, wherein modifying, by the processor set, the plurality of designators comprises: modifying, by the processor set, at least one of a symbol or a color in the plurality of designators to form the plurality of modified designators in which the set of similarity metrics for the plurality of modified designators is no longer within the similarity threshold in 3:45-4:3. Cahill discloses changing text color, background color, all caps, bold, italics font type, font size, modify symbol and color. Accordingly it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date to modify Wahl-Chestnut-Link to incorporate Cahill known display distinguish technique, thus allowing the system to change symbol and color for distinction (Cahill, 3:45-4:3)
As for dependent claim 5:
Wahl – Chestnut – Cahill discloses the computer implemented method of claim 1, wherein the external source comprises at least one of NATO phonetic alphabet, colors, and geographical names. (Chestnut, 1:31-37 and 5:22-27, see user interactive spelling system may use any recognizable word to indicate a letter rather than being restricted to a predefined phonetic alphabet).
As for dependent claim 6:
Wahl – Chestnut – Cahill discloses the computer implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
displaying, by the processor set, the plurality of modified designators in a graphical user interface on a display system (Cahill, 5:40-55, discloses the modified identifier is displayed to the user on a UI of a browser).
As for dependent claims 14-16:Claims 14-16 contain substantial subject matter as claimed in claims 4-6 and are respectfully rejected along the same rationale.
It is noted that any citation to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)).
The Examiner notes MPEP § 2144.01, that quotes In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825,159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968) as stating “in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” Further MPEP 2123, states that “a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 DAVID PHANTANA ANGKOOL whose telephone number is (571) 272-2673. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:00-3:30 PM.
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, can Adam Queler be reached on 571-272-4140. 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.
/David Phantana-angkool/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Prosecution Insights