DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 1 is pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to “A method” comprising steps performed by “information processing devices”, which falls within the statutory category of a process under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 2A, Prong I – whether the claim recites a judicial exception
Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea, specifically managing, organizing and presenting information including storing authentication information, retrieving index information based on authentication and generating a categorized list. The claim recites mental processes and methods of organizing human activity that can be performed by a human using pen and paper or by a generic computer. The limitations including: “storing first and second authentication information” corresponds to collecting and storing data, “acquiring first and second index information based on authentication” corresponds to retrieving information using known credentials, and “generating a list including index information with different indications” corresponds to organizing and presenting information. Such concepts are fundamental information management practices and fall within the groupings of abstract ideas, including mental processes and certain methods of organizing information. Accordingly, claim 1 recites a judicial exception.
Step 2A, Prong II – whether the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The use of first, second and third “information processing devices” and the use of authentication information are recited at a high level of generality and represent well understood , routine, and conventional computer functions. The claim does not recite an unconventional arrangement, specialized hardware, or non-routine processing steps. As such, the additional elements, considered individually and in combination, do not amount to an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.
Step 2B – whether the claim recites significantly more than the judicial exception
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements, including: storing authentication information, using authentication information to access devices, acquiring index information, and generating a list. When considered individually or in combination, represent well-understood, routine and conventional activities within the field of computer-based information management and authentication systems. The claim merely instructs to implement the abstract idea on generic information processing devices without reciting any inventive concept that transforms the nature of the claim into patent-eligible subject matter. Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and claim 1 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,554,647. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the present application are anticipated by the claims of the ‘647 patent. This is an anticipatory double patenting rejection. See the chart below for comparison.
18/791,694
U.S. Patent No. 10,554,647
1. A method, comprising:
storing first authentication information and second authentication information, the first authentication information being information for a user to access a first information processing device, the second authentication information including third authentication information and fourth authentication information, the third authentication information being information for the user to access a second information processing device, and the fourth authentication information being information for the user to access a third information processing device;
acquiring first index information from the second information processing device based on the third authentication information;
acquiring second index information from the third information processing device based on the fourth authentication information;
and generating a list including the first index information with a first indication, and the second index information with a second indication different from the first indication.
1. A method, comprising:
storing first authentication information and second authentication information, the first authentication information being information for a user to access a first information processing device, the second authentication information including third authentication information and forth authentication information, the third authentication information being information for the user to access a second information processing device, and the fourth authentication information being information for the user to access a third information processing device;
acquiring first index information from the second information processing device based on the third authentication information, wherein the first index information is information regarding a file stored in the second information processing device;
acquiring second index information from the third information processing device based on the fourth authentication information,
wherein the second index information is information regarding a file stored in the third information processing device;
and generating a list including the first index information with a first indication, and the second index information with a second indication different from the first indication.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,689,515. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the current application are anticipated by the claims in the ‘515 patent. This is an anticipatory double patenting rejection.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 9,251,150. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the current application are anticipated by the claims in the ‘150 patent. This is an anticipatory double patenting rejection.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 9,912,652. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the current application are anticipated by the claims in the ‘652 patent. This is an anticipatory double patenting rejection.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 10,270,751. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the current application are anticipated by the claims in the ‘751 patent. This is an anticipatory double patenting rejection.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,088,574. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the current application are anticipated by the claims in the ‘574 patent. This is an anticipatory double patenting rejection.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 110,862,878. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the current application are anticipated by the claims in the ‘878 patent. This is an anticipatory double patenting rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lin et al, US 2013/0219476.
Regarding claim 1, Lin discloses a method, comprising:
storing first authentication information and second authentication information (Fig. 2, 202 and paragraph 0060: authentication based on a Subscriber Identity Module (SIM), authentication based on a Universal Integrated Circuit Card (UICC), authentication based on a user name password, authentication based on a certificate and the like. 0010: the authentication router is configured to register a cloud computing service and save the registration information of a cloud computing service registered successfully) the first authentication information being information for a user (figs. 1 and 3 user/user terminal) to access a first information processing device (figs. 2 and 3 cloud computing service), the second authentication information including third authentication information and forth authentication information, the third authentication information being information for the user to access a second information processing device (figs. 2 and 3, authentication router), and the fourth authentication information being information for the user to access a third information processing device (0064: a local authentication server. 0060: authentication based on a Subscriber Identity Module (SIM), authentication based on a Universal Integrated Circuit Card (UICC), authentication based on a user name password, authentication based on a certificate and the like.);
acquiring first index information from the second information processing device based on the third authentication information (Fig. 2, 204 and paragraph 0062: The authentication router saves the index number of the cloud computing service, the chosen authentication mechanism, the address of the authentication server providing the authentication mechanism (such as the Uniform Resource Locator (URL) of the authentication server), the routing strategy of the authentication server and other information according to the choice made by the cloud computing service.);
acquiring second index information from the third information processing device based on the fourth authentication information (0064: If the cloud computing service is not registered in the authentication router, a local authentication server can complete the authentication for the user by default or the user directly accesses the service without being authenticated; and theses interfaces can be set in the strategy of the authentication router.); and
generating a list including the first index information with a first indication, and the second index information with a second indication different from the first indication (0085: the registration module is configured to receive a registration request from the cloud computing service, provide an optional authentication mechanism list for the cloud computing service which is requested to be registered, further receive the authentication mechanism chosen by the cloud computing service from the list, and save the registration information of the cloud computing service according to the authentication mechanism chosen by the cloud computing service. The authentication routing module 22 is configured to receive an authentication request for a user terminal 10 from the cloud computing service, and route the authentication request for the user terminal 10 to a corresponding authentication server for authentication according to the saved registration information corresponding to the cloud computing service.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 8,983,365 to Capparelli et al. teaches generate a list of stations having electronic program guide service available; selecting a radio station from the list of stations; receiving a first index file via the selected radio station at the digital radio broadcast receiver, the first index file having a first version number, and storing the first index file; receiving a second index file via the selected radio station at the digital radio broadcast receiver, the second index file having a second version number, and storing the second index file if the second version number is newer than the first version number, the second index file including information identifying at least one content file and identifying radio stations associated with programming information identified in the at least one content file.
US 2013/0232306 to Dhuse et al. teaches generating the data index list 456, the list module 452 performs a series of listing steps. In a first listing step, when the adjacent data object level index node includes the second boundary data object index key, the list module 452 generates the data index list 456 to include the first boundary data object index key, a first ordered set of data object index keys of the data object level index node, the second boundary data object index key, and a second ordered set of data object index keys of the adjacent data object level index node.
This is a Continuation of applicant's earlier Applications 16/291,048 and 17/098,34.
See claim 1 of Application 16/291,048, filed on 03/04/19, a Non-Final rejection was issued on 05/17/19. Wherein claim 1 of ‘048 application is identical to the claim of the instant application.
Additionally, the identical claim of the instant Application was filed on 11/16/20 in Application 17/098,534. The claim was re-examined in the Office Action issued 07/11/22.
All claims are drawn to the same invention claimed in the earlier application and could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the earlier application. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action in this case. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no, however, event 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 AUBREY H WYSZYNSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-8155. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, ALI SHAYANFAR can be reached at 571-270-1050. 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.
/AUBREY H WYSZYNSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2434