DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the original application filed on 02/24/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 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 claims at issue 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 §§ 706.02(l)(1)-706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,260,002 (US 12260002 B2, hereinafter “Patent”). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of the instant application are broader in every aspect than the corresponding claims of Patent (US 12260002 B2) and are therefore anticipated by claims 1-12 of Patent (US 12260002 B2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-5, 7-12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1-5, 7-12, and 14-20, the claims are determined to be directed to an abstract idea of comparing data and displaying results of collection based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole. The claims disclose comparing anonymized user identifier and displaying lookup results but do not recite any steps beyond the providing the results. Without steps describing further specifics regarding the displaying step, the claims only amount to the abstract idea of comparing data and displaying results of collection. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because simply further clarifying the anonymized user identifier or search results does not constitute adding steps or features beyond the abstract idea of comparing data and displaying results of collection. The involvement of machine with the steps is merely nominally, insignificantly, or tangentially related to the performance of the steps. Without reciting additional elements beyond the abstract idea of comparing data and displaying results of collection, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 1-5, 7-12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Dickie (US 2023/0104852 A1, hereinafter “Dickie”).
Regarding claim 1 (and similarly claims 8 and 15), Dickie discloses:
A system, comprising:
a computing device comprising a processor and a memory (devices with processor and memory, Dickie: [0027]); and
machine-readable instructions stored in the memory that, when executed by the processor, cause the computing device to at least (applications, Dickie: [0027]):
authenticate the computing device via an authentication service (authenticating via authentication system, Dickie: [0276]);
obtain an anonymized user identifier from the authentication service (receiving anonymous user identifier from authentication system, Dickie: [0196]-[0201]);
display a specified user interface from a provider application using the anonymized user identifier (displaying at client user interface anonymous user identifier, Dickie: [0205]-[0211]);
send a search request to the provider application using the anonymized user identifier (submitting login request to third-party entity using anonymous user identifier, Dickie: [0217]-[0224]); and
display a plurality of results from the search request within the specified user interface (displaying results of login request via interface of third-party entity, Dickie: [0217]-[0252]).
Regarding claim 2, Dickie teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Dickie further discloses:
wherein the computing device is authenticated by logging into an authentication interface via a webpage from the provider application (authenticating via website of third-party entity, Dickie: [0028]).
Regarding claim 3, Dickie teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Dickie further discloses:
wherein the anonymized user identifier is unique to individual sessions and individual computing devices (unique anonymous user identifier, Dickie: [0172]-[0183]).
Regarding claim 4, Dickie teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Dickie further discloses:
wherein the results from the search request are tailored to a profile associated with the anonymized user identifier (displaying results of login request based on anonymous user identifier, Dickie: [0217]-[0252]).
Regarding claim 5, Dickie teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Dickie further discloses:
wherein the results from the search request are displayed in compliance with a layout order determined by a layout service based at least in part on the anonymized user identifier or a navigation identifier (displaying results of login request based on anonymous user identifier, Dickie: [0217]-[0252]).
Regarding claim 7, Dickie teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Dickie further discloses:
wherein the anonymized user identifier is an authentication token (creating anonymous user identifier as authentication object, Dickie: [0172]-[0183]).
Regarding claim 9-12, 14, and 16-20, they do not teach or further define over the limitations in claims 2-5 and 7. Therefore, claims 9-12, 14, and 16-20 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claims 2-5 and 7 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: Fasoli et al. (US 2020/0382455 A1: Systems and Methods of an Anonymous Email Relay), Pasdar (US 2014/0115715 A1: System and Method for Controlling, Obfuscating and Anonymizing Data and Services When Using Provider Services), Cristofaro (US 2014/0089049 A1: Selecting Anonymous Users Based on User Location History), and Kong et al. (US 2015/0242374 A1: Automatic Layout Technology).
In the case of amendments, applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and support, for ascertaining the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIL H. LEE whose telephone number is 571-272-3408. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri: 9am-6pm EST.
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, Glenton B. Burgess can be reached on 571-272-3949. 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.
/GIL H. LEE/
Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2454
Prosecution Insights