Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Objection to the Specification
2. Applicant is requested to update status of related applications cited in page 1 of the specification, i.e., providing patent numbers where appropriate.
Non-Art Rejection
3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor.
4. Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The following language lacks proper antecedent basis:
In claim 1, line 12, “the distinguished internal identifier”.
In claim 1, line 13-14, “the distinguished identifier assigned to the user by the first application instance”.
The same indefiniteness of claim 1 is also applied to claims.
Art Rejection
5. 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.
6. Claims 1, 4, 9-10 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Shih, U.S. pat. Appl. Pub. No. 2013/01109220.
Per claim 1, Shih discloses a computer memory device storing a data structure for managing information a plurality of users comprising:
a) first information relating an identifier (token) assigned to the user by an authentication service to an internal identifier (ESMMP ID) assigned to the user (see Fig. 4A); and
b) second information relating the internal identifier (ESMMP ID) assigned to the user to
an external identifier (external ID) assigned to the user by a first application instance, e.g., Facebook page (see Figs 4B and 4C); and
c) such that the contents of the data structure are usable to, when a distinguished user is authenticated by the authentication service to produce a distinguished identifier assigned to the distinguished user by the authentication service:
i) map from the distinguished identifier assigned to the distinguished user by the authentication service to the internal identifier assigned to the user (see par 0042);
ii) map from the internal identifier assigned to the user to the identifier assigned to the user by the first application instance, e.g., Asset ID 19 (see par 0044-0045); and
iii) automatically authenticate the distinguished user to the first application instance using the distinguished identifier assigned to the user by the first application instance (see par 0043).
Per claim 4, Shih teaches that the data structure further comprises third information mapping the internal identifier assigned to the user to an identifier (external ID) assigned to the user by a second application instance, e.g., Asset ID (see fig. 4B, 4C).
Claims 9-10 and 14-15 are similar in scope as that of claims 1 and 4 and hence are rejected for the same rationale set forth for claims 1 and 4.
7. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
8. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
9. Claims 2-3, 5-8, 11-13 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shih.
Per claims 2-3, Shih teaches that each identifier assigned to the user by the application instance (asset) is a page ID or record number, e.g., Facebook page or Twitter feed ID (see par 0044 and fig. 4B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize that the identifier can be used to identify any type of records including medical records.
Per claim 5, Shih also teaches storing third information relating the identifier assigned to the user by the authentication service to an internal identifier assigned to the user to a sign-in name (username) and password, i.e., login credentials, such that the third information can be used to authenticate the user by the authentication service (see par 0020). Shih does not explicitly teach utilizing a hash result for a password for the user. Shih however teaches using a security token in lieu of a password to authenticate user (see par 0043).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to utilize any form and/or any combination of credentials including a has result of a password to authenticate user.
Per claim 6, Shih teaches using the sign-in name and the text (NAME, fig. 4B) identifying the first application instance to access the first application instance (see par 0047-0048).
Per claim 7, Shih teaches that data structure comprises information of web-based applications instance which can be accessed by their Internet addresses (see par 0019).
Per claim 8, Shih teaches that data structure comprises information of user assets, many of which include demographic profile about the user, e.g., Facebook account (see par 0018).
Claims 11-13 and 16-20 are similar in scope as that of claims 2-3 and 5-8 and hence are rejected for the same rationale set forth for claims 2-3 and 5-8.
Conclusion
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Viet Vu whose telephone number is 571-272-3977. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday from 8:00am to 6:00pm. The Group general information number is 571-272-2400. The Group fax number is 571-273-8300.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Emmanuel Moise, can be reached at 571-272-3865.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Viet D Vu/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455
1/12/26