DETAILED ACTION
The following final Office action is in response to Applicant's submission received on 11/25/2024.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 11, 18 and 20 are amended in Applicant’s response. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Amendments/Remarks
Applicant's arguments received on 11/25/2024 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
See Remarks, pg. 6 of Applicant’s response, stating, “Applicant has amended the claims to for example highlight the broad network systems and methods represented here by for example using terms such as, "each of a plurality of entities " rather than, "at least one entity", in many cases. Also we use the terms, input and output, in the claims as well as for example, input and/or output being included in description and definitions of other terms such as for example evaluation and capture, in the claims and specification. Since providing input and/or output is a large and key part of what networks do, by teaching for example (as well as other benefits) a more efficient and well targeted way of doing this, than , as we have found, has ever been done before, we teach (a) new and improved network and network functionality.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As previously indicated, new manners of network function and a new particular machine are not conveyed by the claims through use of the additional elements of a computer and network for achieving the steps that describe an abstract idea including “identifying evaluations”, “accumulating evaluations”, “compensation term is communicated”, “matching data” and “providing input”. Rather, as a whole, independent claims 1 and 11 merely describe to generally “apply” the abstract idea in a computer environment. The independent claims recite generic computer components (i.e., a computer and networks) at a high level of generality to implement an abstract idea which does not reflect an improvement to computers or network functionality, nor integration of the abstract idea into a practical application nor an inventive concept based on the USPTO’s 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (Fed. Reg. Vol. 84, No. 4 January 7, 2019) (“2019 PEG”) and various sections of MPEP 2106. For example, MPEP 2106.05(b) with respect to a “particular machine” states, “It is important to note that a general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716-17, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755-56 (Fed. Cir. 2014). See also TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of concrete or tangible components is not an inventive concept);…Merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014).” Applicant’s limitations do not convey use of non-conventional computer functions. Also, MPEP 2106.05(f) indicates additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea with a computer at a high level of generality are insufficient to render a claim patent eligible. Further, as indicated in the DealerTrack v. Huber decision (Fed. Cir. 2012), "Simply adding a “computer-aided” limitation to a claim covering an abstract concept, without more, is insufficient to render the claim patent eligible. See SiRF, 601 F.3d at 1333 (“In order for the addition of a machine to impose a meaningful limit on the scope of a claim, it must play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed, rather than function solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly, i.e., through the utilization of a computer for performing calculations.”).” Also, as explained in the Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, 792 F.3d at 1371-72 (Fed. Cir. 2015) decision (citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359), “[s]teps that do nothing more than spell out what it means to ‘apply it on a computer’ cannot confer patent-eligibility.” Also, computer processes of receiving and transmitting data over a network are considered well-understood, routine and conventional computer functionality when claimed in a merely generic manner as it is here in Applicant’s claims. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) with references to TLI Communications, OIP Techs, and buySAFE regarding well-understood, routine and conventional computer functionality with respect to receiving and transmitting data over a network. In Applicant’s case, the steps of “identifying evaluations”, “accumulating evaluations”, “compensation term is communicated”, “matching data” and “providing input” are implemented by a computer and a network at a high level of generality to apply an abstract idea thus equating to adding computer-aided limitations without more and amounting to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer which are insufficient to demonstrate new manners of network function or a new particular machine. These additional elements of a computer and network simply convey ‘apply it on a computer’.
Applicant further states with respect to 35 U.S.C. 102(b) and 103(a) rejections, “Applicant had stated in his prior Remarks, " particularly new manners of network function are being used in the Instant Application which work with, "any data related to one or more entities accessible over a network which when applied over one or more wide area networks as disclosed by Applicant' s claims yield particularly new manners of network function, thus (a ) new particular machine(s).". By using the word "any" Applicant was for example conveying the vast amount of data encompassed by what is an entirely new, broadly applied form of networking.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Based on the wording of independent claims 1 and 11, Petras teaches the limitations as indicated in the previous Office action. Examiner suggests amending the claims in order to distinguish the claims from the teachings in Petras.
With respect to Official Notice taken regarding use of cookies, Applicant states, “Again, Applicant disagrees, as he asserted before, Cookies are a tool for collecting data over a network. Since as touched upon above, we are disclosing fundamentally new networking and network functionality, the use of such a network tool would not necessarily be obvious, for example, in light of the fact that we disclose a variety of other methods and tools for accessing data in the specification.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Per MPEP 2144.03(C), a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention is inadequate to traverse Official Notice.
Applicant further states with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101, “8-9.) Examiner here offers 101 objections. the Examiner is picking and choosing aspects of the specification which describe real world benefits for example, "social media or interaction", etc.. However, by dissecting aspects of the specification, the overall teaching of new technical approaches, for example as touched upon above, are missed. As Applicant mentions above for example in section 5, " we use the terms, input and output, in the claims as well as for example, input and/or output being included in description and definitions of other terms such as for example evaluation and capture, in the claims and specification. Since providing input and/or output is a large and key part of what networks do, by teaching for example (as well as other benefits) a more efficient and well targeted way of doing this, than , as we have found, has ever been done before, we teach (a) new and improved network and network functionality.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2106.05(f) indicates additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea with a computer at a high level of generality are insufficient to render a claim patent eligible. Also, computer processes of receiving and transmitting data over a network are considered well-understood, routine and conventional computer functionality when claimed in a merely generic manner as it is here in Applicant’s claims. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) with references to TLI Communications, OIP Techs, and buySAFE regarding well-understood, routine and conventional computer functionality with respect to receiving and transmitting data over a network.
Applicant further states with respect to “Petras”, “10-12.) Here Examiner offers that, "Claims 1-8 and 11-20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Petras et al US 2001/0047290 A1 (hereinafter "Petras")". Claim 1 upon which all other claims are dependent, differs fundamentally form what Petras teaches, for example in data capture across a network and in the forms of compensation which our Claim 1 refers to. Claim 11 is to a large extent a citing of aspects of Claim 1. Both these claims have been amended along with other dependent claims to further highlight the numerous, pluralities of entities, that constitute numerous, diverging user networks from what Petras teaches.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Based on the wording of independent claims 1 and 11 and broadest reasonable interpretation, Petras teaches the limitations as indicated in the previous Office action including with respect to “identifying evaluations” and “accumulating evaluations” relating to/associated with an entity. The amendment to the claims to now recite a “plurality of entities” does not distinguish from Petras. Petras discloses an online system facilitating gathering and providing of evaluations of a plurality of subjects (such as describing and rating experiences, activities, products, services, topics [0030], [0163]… e.g., hiking trail in [0192], bike dealer in Fig. 41-A and Morton’s Steak House in [0319]) by users which are entered into the Subject Database (see [0152], [0163], Fig. 13). Petras further discloses Subject pages contain summary information for each evaluated subject including ratings (see [0335], [0342], Fig. 43-A, 43-B). Examiner suggests amending the claims in order to distinguish the claims from the teachings in Petras.
Official Notice
In the previous Office Action mailed 10/3/23, Official Notice was taken by the Examiner that certain subject matter is old and well known in the art. Per MPEP 2144.03(C), these statements are taken as admitted prior art because no reasonable traversal of this statement was made in the subsequent response filed 4/3/24. Specifically, it has been taken as prior art that it was known to use cookies on a user’s computer as an identifier.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities with respect to proper antecedence: Independent claims 1 and 11 now recite, based on the amendments to the claims filed 11/25/2024, “each of a plurality of entities” in the “identifying” and “accumulating” limitations and also in the “wherein” limitation of claim 11. For proper antecedence, after the initial recitation of “each of a plurality of entities”, subsequent recitations that refer to the same plurality of entities should be “each of the plurality of entities”. For example, it is interpreted that in the “identifying” and “accumulating” limitations, the same plurality of entities is being referred to. Dependent claims 6, 7 and 20 similarly recite “a” rather than “the” with respect to plurality of entities. Further, the other dependent claims are objected to due to their dependency from either independent claim 1 or 11. Appropriate corrections are required.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more based on the guidance provided in the Office’s 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (See Federal Register Vol. 84, No. 4, January 7, 2019, hereinafter “2019 PEG”).
Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility test entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). In Applicant’s case, the claims pass Step 1.
However, for Step 2A Prong One of the subject matter eligibility test, independent claim 1 for example recites an abstract idea of identifying and accumulating evaluations relating to entities to create an accreditation associated with each entity and communicating compensation. The limitations that describe an abstract idea are:
…identifying evaluations, relating to each of a plurality of entities
accumulating evaluations associated with each of a plurality of entities each of a plurality of entities
utilizing a compensation…;
…at least one compensation term is communicated…between at least one provider of at least one of the said evaluation(s) relating to at least one entity and at least one entity recipient.
These limitations fall under the abstract idea subject matter grouping of ‘certain methods of organizing human activity’ because the claimed evaluations and accreditation of entities and compensation represent concepts similar to concepts in the sub-groupings of fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions (including agreements or obligations, sales activities and business relations) and managing relationships or interactions between entities (including social activities). Applicant’s originally filed specification supports this conclusion. For example, Applicant’s originally filed specification in paragraph [0011] characterizes the invention in part as “The present disclosure teaches forms of social media or interaction…” Also, paragraph [0151] of the originally filed specification describes compensation, as “for example but not limited to financial” and “may be offered and/or made to a Participant or Entity for Providing Evaluation…” Also, as discussed in the USPTO’s 2019 PEG, recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not preclude the claim from reciting an abstract idea. Therefore, the recited computer elements of claim 1 do not preclude the claim from reciting an abstract idea. These computer elements are addressed accordingly in Step 2A Prong Two below. With respect to claim 11, which is currently in independent form and previously a dependent claim, the claim does not include the compensation concept in claim 1 but does include the steps of identifying and accumulating evaluations to create an accreditation associated with an entity as in claim 1. Claim 11 further includes that evaluations comprise input and output of an entity and further includes steps of matching data based on accumulated accreditation or lack thereof and providing input to the entity from this matching. While slightly different than the limitations in claim 1, the limitations in claim 11 nonetheless also fall under the abstract idea subject matter grouping of ‘certain methods of organizing human activity’ because evaluations and accreditation of entities represent concepts similar to concepts in the sub-grouping of managing relationships or interactions between entities inclusive of social activities which would encompass the claimed evaluations and accreditation of entities.
For Step 2A Prong Two of the subject matter eligibility test, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. As a whole, independent claims 1 and 11 merely describe to generally “apply” the abstract idea in a computer environment. For example, in claims 1 and 11 the additional elements of 1.) a computer, 2.) through and on at least one of the Internet and one or more wide area networks and one or more local area networks, 3.) comprising use of one or more processors and one or more tools which may be embodied in one or more computer programs stored on a computer readable medium or program storage device and/or transmitted in the form of a computer data signal in one or more segments via a computer network or other transmission medium (in context of a compensation system in claim 1 but no context in claim 11), as well as 4.) over at least one network (only in claim 1 in context of communicating a compensation term) are all recited at a high-level of generality which amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea using generic computer components (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), invoking the generic computer components merely as tools to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Applicant’s disclosure supports this conclusion. See Applicant’s Fig. 7 and paragraphs [0025]-[0027], [0035] of the originally filed specification regarding using generic computer/computer components and also paragraph [0090] stating “Data or information may be Captured or acquired on such Intellectual Capital, Intellectual Output, Entity(ies) of Value and Performance(s) of Participants and processed according to the teachings of the present disclosure utilizing any system(s) of data processing (which may be capable of filtering and/or processing data or information for the uses taught by the present disclosure) and/or data storage and retrieval, such as (a) computer system(s) Data for Capture may be acquired through any type of communication between humans or Participants or between humans or Participants and machines or systems utilized by them.”. Applicant’s use of the generic computer components is similar to other instances where a generically recited computer or computing components amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on the generically recited computer or computing components or to merely using the generically recited computer or computing components as a tool such as in Alice Corp., SAP America v. InvestPic (Fed. Cir. 2018), Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., (Fed. Cir. 2017) and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA) (Fed. Cir. 2015). Also, the fact that the evaluations are identified at least one of through and on at least one of the Internet and one or more wide area networks and one or more local area networks amounts to basic data gathering which is considered insignificant pre-solution activity consistent with MPEP 2106.05(g). For example, the claimed use of the Internet or other network in identifying evaluations, interpreted as mere data gathering, is similar to the example data gathering using the Internet discussed in the MPEP 2106.05(g) (see MPEP 2106.05(g) including CyberSource v. Retail Decision, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). Also, MPEP 2106.05(g) references the Electric Power Group decision and indicates selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated is considered mere data gathering. In view of the MPEP, Applicant’s use of the Internet or other network in identifying evaluations only provides insignificant pre-solution activity to the abstract idea. Further, as currently recited the step of identifying evaluations using a computer and the Internet or other network lacks any specific implementation details indicating a technical improvement but rather conveys generically using a computer to identify evaluations which cannot provide for a conclusion that the claim results in a particular improvement in the functioning of a computer, an improvement to other technology or technical field, or any new manner of network function. As explained in the Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, 792 F.3d at 1371-72 (Fed. Cir. 2015) decision (citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359), “[s]teps that do nothing more than spell out what it means to ‘apply it on a computer’ cannot confer patent-eligibility.” Thus, the recited generic computer components for performing the recited combination of steps amounts to a combination of mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components/using the generic computer components merely as tools and limiting the abstract idea to a particular technological environment which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B, as discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements alone and in combination amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components/using the generic computer components merely as tools and limiting the abstract idea to a particular technological environment which does not impose any meaningful limits and therefore cannot provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Also, for the limitation of use of the Internet or other network in identifying evaluations (i.e., at least one of through and on at least one of the Internet and one or more wide area networks and one or more local area networks) interpreted as mere data gathering and considered insignificant pre-solution activity in Step 2A Prong Two, this has been reevaluated in Step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine and conventional in view of MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) which indicates receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, is well-understood, routine and conventional when it is claimed in a merely generic manner as it is here (see e.g., references to Symantec and TLI Communications in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). This conclusion of well-understood, routine and conventional also applies to claim 1’s limitation regarding communicating a compensation term over a network. Also, Applicant’s originally filed specification indicates that no more than a generic computer/computer components is/are required for implementation (see e.g., Applicant’s Fig. 7, [0025]-[0027], [0090]). Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
The dependent claims include the limitations of their respective independent claim and therefore recite the same abstract idea. Accordingly, the analysis and rationale discussed above regarding the independent claims and abstract idea also apply to the dependent claims. Also, the dependent claims further limit the abstract idea by narrowing said abstract idea to include: evaluations from different sources (claim 2); further description of evaluations (claims 3, 4 and 20); evaluations can be filtered, categorized, accessed and stored (claim 5); analyzing evaluations and recommending education (claim 6); supervision and compensation are utilized (claim 7); using an entity specific identifier (claims 8, 9 and 10); compensation term can be compensation due or paid or in a predetermined category or accreditation generated in a predetermined category (claim 12); constraining when compensation is triggered (claims 14, 15); an evaluator can be one who does not receive a product or service of an entity (claim 18); match entities based on accreditation or lack of accreditation (claim 19); and accumulated evaluations comprises at least one of input and output of an entity (claim 20). These limitations only limit the abstract idea to a more narrow abstract idea but such narrowing does not transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. Also, as mentioned above reciting generic computer/computer components and functionality at a high level of generality (e.g., communicating and receiving/transmitting data over a network) does not provide for a practical application nor significantly more. This applies for example to the claimed networks, server, computers or terminals, and database which are claimed at a high level of generality and invoked in their known ordinary capacity (claims 12, 13 and 15-17). Therefore, the dependent claims do not contain elements to demonstrate integration of the abstract idea into a practical application nor do they demonstrate significantly more.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are not drawn to patent-eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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 pre-AIA 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 –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claims 1-8 and 11-20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Petras et al US 2001/0047290 A1 (hereinafter “Petras”).
Regarding claim 1, Petras teaches a method of accumulating accreditation, comprising a computer implemented method of:
identifying evaluations, relating to each of a plurality of entities(Petras discloses evaluations of plurality of subjects (such as describing and rating experiences, activities, products, services, topics [0030], [0163]… e.g., hiking trail in [0192], bike dealer in Fig. 41-A and Morton’s Steak House in [0319]) by particular users which are entered into the Subject Database – [0152], [0163], Fig. 13; examples of process of adding example subjects, comments/ratings, descriptive words - [0192]-[0202], [0273]-[0275], [0295], [0296], [0326], [0342], Figs. 41-A, 41-B; Internet [0155]; [0193] – each subject has a name, categories, subcategories and location which identify the subjects; [0203] subjects also identified through user search…example subject “Trail 100”);
accumulating evaluations associated with each of a plurality of entitieseach of a plurality of entities (Subject pages contain summary information for each evaluated subject including ratings – [0335], [0342], Fig. 43-A, 43-B);
utilizing a compensation system comprising use of one or more processors and one or more tools which may be embodied in one or more computer programs stored on a computer readable medium or program storage device and/or transmitted in the form of a computer data signal in one or more segments via a computer network or other transmission medium (compensation in terms of users can earn points and percentage of sponsorship revenue can be shared…sponsorship revenue based on sponsor receiving opportunity to sponsor a subject by paying a fee – [0159], [0182], [0281], [0344], [0422]; Figs. 1-A, 1-B, 1-C depict computer system with server, software, storage and communicating via Internet for implementation including for compensating [0155]-[0157], [0165], [0170], [0182]); and
wherein data comprising at least one compensation term is communicated over at least one network, between at least one provider of at least one of the said evaluation(s) relating to at least one entity and at least one entity recipient (Based on broadest reasonable interpretation, communicating a financial obligation or payment between users is interpreted as communicating a compensation term which is taught by Petras. Petras in [0039] teaches automatically manage the direct collection of sponsor revenue from respective entities desiring to sponsor a respective particular item of subject information which is essentially information about or associated with or related to the sponsor and that information includes comments/ratings (i.e., evaluations) (see e.g., [0295], [0296]). Petras teaches in [0170] that upon receiving a notice, a sponsor electronically provides a payment. Petras in [0185] teaches user activities affect the WOM database tables which are used as input to the sponsor billing module which provides for automated billing…which is interpreted as recognizing user activity with content triggers billing. Also, in [0190], [0191], Petras teaches that as subjects pertaining to a sponsor are input in to the Sponsor Management Software the fees subsequently due are generated and the sponsor is billed and the sponsor responds by paying electronically. Therefore, as one example, Petras teaches communicating a financial obligation and payment between provider of the system of evaluations and an entity recipient that receives the opportunity to sponsor a subject).
Regarding claim 2, Petras teaches the elements of claim 1 as shown above. Petras further teaches:
at least one of locating and identifying evaluations from different sources on a computer network (evaluations of subjects (i.e., experiences, activities, products, services, topics [0030] e.g., hiking trail in [0192], bike dealer in Fig. 41-A and Morton’s Steak House in [0319]) by particular users are entered into the Subject Database – [0152], [0163], Fig. 13; examples of process of adding example subjects, comments/ratings, descriptive words - [0192]-[0202], [0273]-[0275], [0295], [0296], [0327], [0342], Figs. 41-A, 41-B; Internet [0155], Fig. 1-A).
Regarding claim 3, Petras teaches the elements of claim 1 as shown above. Petras further teaches:
wherein the evaluations are data of at least one of, an entity of value, intellectual output, intellectual input, education, a product, a service, a performance and compensation data, associated with each of a plurality of providers (based on the broadest reasonable interpretation, Petras’ disclosure of submissions of subjects with evaluations (including comments/ratings, descriptive words) and evaluations of the submitted subjects having evaluations, where subjects can be related to experiences, activities, products, services, topics and places, cover the categories of an entity of value, intellectual output, intellectual input, education, a product, a service, a performance and compensation data: for example with respect to the claim language of “evaluations are data of…compensation data…”, a user sharing about an exceptional experience (referred to as a subject by Petras) by submitting/evaluating such with the online community in which the user indicates “great value” ([0274]) can be interpreted as teaching evaluations are data of “compensation data” since the user is indicating what can be received in return for the expense they incur; for example, a user indicating “with experienced knowledgeable sales and service staff” (see Fig. 32) can be interpreted as teaching evaluations are data of “intellectual output” as user is evaluating experience and knowledge that an entity provides; for example, a user can review subject information and suggest improvements ([0343]) which can be interpreted as teaching evaluations are data of “education” as user is providing information to improve an entity; for example with “intellectual input”, since a subject can have what is interpreted as an owner, called a Sponsor in Petras’ disclosure, who is also allowed to add their subjects (see e.g., [0172] – their own new subject adds) or additional information about their subjects (see e.g., [0162], [0189]) which are then evaluated by members of the community (see e.g., [0190] – subjects including any updates are made available to members; [0203] – user can search for a subject and provide ratings or comments; [0335] – “Subject page” provides the accumulation and summary of all information about each subject including ratings and comments left by multiple users), then the evaluations can be interpreted as teaching evaluations are data of “intellectual input” as user is evaluating an entity’s expressed subject knowledge or information – also see [0162], [0172], [0174], [0186]-[0190]; submissions and evaluations by users are entered into the Subject Database – [0152], [0163], Fig. 13; evaluations of experiences, activities, products, services, topics [0030], [0163] and places e.g., inexpensive discount store in [0273], hiking trail in [0192], bike dealer in Fig. 41-A and Morton’s Steak House in [0319]…for example an evaluation of an experience at Morton’s Steak House can teach evaluations are data of an entity of value, product, service and performance as well as education, intellectual input and output as the evaluation represents a user’s intellectual input and when provided to the rest of the online community to read also represents intellectual output and education for others to read; for examples of the process of adding example subjects, comments/ratings, descriptive words see [0192]-[0203], [0273]-[0275], [0295], [0296], [0327], [0342], Figs. 41-A, 41-B; Internet [0155], Fig. 1-A; subject summary page – [0335], [0342], Fig. 43-A, 43-B; [0401] – describes how a user has added subjects and opinions/reviews and other users agree with the user’s opinions/reviews which establishes user’s credibility).
Regarding claim 4, Petras teaches the elements of claim 1 as shown above. Petras further teaches:
at least one of locating and identifying evaluations which may include compensation data, of at least one of provider and recipient on at least one of the Internet, World Wide Web (WWW), a wide area network, a local area network, and a phone system network (evaluations of subjects (i.e., experiences, products, services, etc. e.g., hiking trail in [0192], bike dealer in Fig. 41-A and Morton’s Steak House in [0319]) by particular users are entered into the Subject Database – [0152], [0163], Fig. 13; examples of process of adding subjects, comments/ratings - [0192]-[0202], [0274], [0275], [0295], [0296], [0327], [0342], Figs. 41-A, 41-B; Internet [0155], Fig. 1-A; Internet [0155], Fig. 1-A; user shares their experience about an entity e.g., Home Cooking restaurant, who is notified and signs up to be a sponsor and pays fees which are shared with the users [0186]-[0190], [0281], [0297]; settings for pool $, point values and percentage of sponsorship revenue – [0182], [0281]; Fig. 57-A MyPage screen provides communication such as points and rewards and notify organizations about subjects you added and earn 20 points each; sponsor payments automatically sent to the customer – [0170]).
Regarding claim 5, Petras teaches the elements of claim 1 as shown above. Petras further teaches:
wherein the at least one of located and identified evaluations which may include compensation data, of at least one of provider and recipient are filtered, categorized, accessed and stored (storing – [0202]; categories and subcategories associated with evaluated subject – [0192]; generate list of the 100 highest-rated Subjects for each category…top 10 are added to the home page – [0422]).
Regarding claim 6, Petras teaches the elements of claim 20 as shown above. Petras further teaches including a method of recommending education comprising:
analyzing at least one of evaluations, work experience and education associated with each of a plurality of entities each of a plurality of entities (if user finds inaccurate or outdated information about a subject on the subject’s Subject page in which the Subject page includes various information about the subject and evaluations such as ratings (see [0273]-[0275], [0335], [0342], Fig. 43-A, 43-B), then user can suggest improvements – [0343]; Correspondents review suggested improvements – [0350]; [0336] – learning opportunities), wherein a method of at least one of supervision and compensation are utilized (Correspondents or Managing Members activities using the system provide supervision - [0327], [0349]).
Regarding claim 7, Petras teaches the elements of claim 1 as shown above. Petras further teaches including a system or systems of accumulating accreditation, comprising: at least one of locating and identifying evaluations from different sources relating to each of a plurality of entities accumulating evaluations associated with each of a plurality of entities each of a plurality of entities (evaluations of subjects (i.e., experiences, products, services, etc. e.g., hiking trail in [0192], bike dealer in Fig. 41-A and Morton’s Steak House in [0319]) by particular users are entered into the Subject Database – [0152], [0163], Fig. 13; examples of process of adding example subjects, comments/ratings - [0192]-[0202], [0273]-[0275], [0295], [0296], [0327], [0342], Figs. 41-A, 41-B; Subject page contains summary information for each evaluated subject including ratings – [0335], [0342], Fig. 43-A, 43-B), wherein at least one of a system of supervision and compensation are utilized (Correspondents or Managing Members activities using the system provide “a system of supervision” - [0327], [0349]; regarding compensation…user shares their experience about an entity e.g., Home Cooking restaurant, who is notified and signs up to be a sponsor and pays fees which are shared with the users [0186]-[0190], [0281], [0297]; settings for pool $, point values and percentage of sponsorship revenue – [0182], [0281]; Fig. 57-A MyPage screen provides communication such as points and rewards and notify organizations about subjects you added and earn 20 points each; sponsor payments automatically sent to the customer – [0170]).
Regarding claim 8, Petras teaches the elements of claim 1 as shown above. Petras further teaches including a method of accumulating accreditation, the method comprising: identifying an evaluation from at least one source relating to at least one entity; and accumulating evaluations associated with the at least one entity to create an accreditation associated with the at least one entity, wherein data is captured specific to an entity by using an identifier specific to the entity that accompanies data related to such entity (evaluations of subjects (i.e., experiences, products, services, etc. [0030], e.g., hiking trail in [0192], bike dealer in Fig. 41-A and Morton’s Steak House in [0319]) by particular users are entered into the Subject Database – [0152], [0163], Fig. 13; examples of process of adding subjects, comments/ratings - [0192]-[0202], [0273]-[0275], [0295], [0296], [0327], [0342], Figs. 41-A, 41-B; Subject page contains summary information for each evaluated subject including ratings – [0335], [0342], Fig. 43-A, 43-B; bookmark summary tracks the number of times that each Subject was bookmarked by a user – [0422]; Report Lives touched, i.e. people who have visited subjects you have added – [0181]; Subject has received 220 page views and the comments have received 161 page views – [0344]; track Tomaso’s - [0354]).
Regarding claim 11, Petras teaches a method of accumulating accreditation, comprising a computer implemented method of:
identifying evaluations, relating to each of a plurality of entities (evaluations of subjects (i.e., experiences, products, services, etc. e.g., hiking trail in [0192], bike dealer in Fig. 41-A and Morton’s Steak House in [0319]) by particular users are entered into the Subject Database – [0152], [0163], Fig. 13; examples of process of adding example subjects, comments/ratings - [0192]-[0202], [0273]-[0275], [0295], [0296], [0326], [0342], Figs. 41-A, 41-B; Internet [0155]);
accumulating evaluations associated with each of a plurality of entities each of a plurality of entities (Subject page contains summary information for each evaluated subject including ratings – [0335], [0342], Fig. 43-A, 43-B);
comprising use of one or more processors and one or more tools which may be embodied in one or more computer programs stored on a computer readable medium or program storage device and/or transmitted in the form of a computer data signal in one or more segments via a computer network or other transmission medium (users can earn points and percentage of sponsorship revenue can be shared – [0159], [0182], [0281], [0344], [0422]; Figs. 1-A, 1-B, 1-C depict computer system with server, software, storage communicating via Internet for implementing include for compensating [0155]-[0157], [0165], [0170], [0182])
wherein one or more of the identified evaluations or a plurality of evaluations comprise input and output of each of a plurality of entities (Petras teaches evaluations of subjects such as products, services, and places, etc. in which these types of subjects are interpreted as “output” of an entity …disclosed examples include a restaurant, a steak, a campsite, a sports bar, a golf course, a bike store, a hiking trail - [0192]-[0203], [0273]-[0275], [0295]-[0296], [0323], Figs. 41-A, 41-B; subject summary page – [0335], [0342], Fig. 43-A, 43-B; also since a subject can have what is interpreted as an owner, called a Sponsor in Petras’ disclosure, who is also allowed to add their subjects (see e.g., [0172] – their own new subject adds) or additional information about their subjects (see e.g., [0162], [0189]) which are then evaluated by members of the community (see e.g., [0190] – subjects including any updates are made available to members; [0203] – user can search for a subject and provide ratings or comments; [0335] – “Subject page” provides the accumulation and summary of all information about each subject including ratings and comments left by multiple users), then the evaluations comprise “input” of the entity – also see [0162], [0172], [0174], [0186]-[0190]. Based on how “input” is claimed in this limitation and the next limitation, “input… of each of a plurality of entities” in this limitation is interpreted as a different input than the input recited in the next limitation of “providing input to each of a plurality of entities”).
including, a method of providing input comprising:
matching data based on at least one of said accumulated accreditation or lack of accreditation (regarding matching: user searches by keyword or category including for example “Best of Best” and receives the “matching” search results (see [0333], [0334] – subjects returned receive priority and “Best” distinctions based on how highly rated they are…interpreted as example of accumulated accreditation; also see [0328], [0333]-[0336], Figs. 42, 43-A, 43-B), and
providing input to the at least one entity from this matching (regarding matching: after user searches by keyword or category including for example “Best of Best” (see [0333], [0334]) and receives the “matching” search results (see [0328], [0333]-[0336]) the user can then upon a selection go to a Subject page and review it (see [0335]); regarding input: upon the review of the Subject page, user can add ratings and comments about a subject in which the Subject page includes evaluations associated with the subject (see [0335], [0342], Fig. 43-A, 43-B) and if user finds inaccurate or outdated information then user can also suggest improvements – [0343]).
Regarding claim 12, Petras teaches the elements of claim 1 as shown above. Petras further teaches wherein the at least one compensation term communicated over at least one network, is communicated over at least one network of the Internet, World Wide Web (WWW), a local area network, a wide area network, and a phone system network and wherein data is at least one of captured and processed, comprising at least one term of compensation due, compensation paid, accreditation generated in a predetermined category, compensation due or paid in a predetermined category (Internet – [0155], Fig. 1A; Petras teaches in [0170] that upon receiving a notice, a sponsor electronically provides a payment. Petras in [0185] teaches user activities affect the WOM database tables which are used as input to the sponsor billing module which provides for automated billing…which is interpreted as recognizing user activity with content triggers billing. Also, in [0190], [0191], Petras teaches that as subjects (e.g. great apple pie and meatloaf sandwich) pertaining to a sponsor are input in to the Sponsor Management Software the fees subsequently due are generated and the sponsor is billed and the sponsor responds by paying electronically).
Regarding claim 13, Petras teaches the elements of claim 12 as shown above. Petras further teaches wherein the at least one term is communicated utilizing at least one server, between entities computers or terminals (system including server and user computers– [0155]-[0157], Figs. 1A, 1B, 1C).
Regarding claim 14, Petras teaches the elements of claim 1 as shown above. Petras further teaches wherein data of at least one of compensation or compensation due is triggered by at least one of data capture, accreditation and data of compensation specific to the at least one entity recipient (Petras teaches compensation or compensation due triggered by data capture. Petras teaches in [0170] that upon receiving a notice, a sponsor electronically provides a payment. Also, Petras in [0185] teaches user activities affect the WOM database tables which are used as input to the sponsor billing module which provides for automated billing…which is interpreted as recognizing user activity with content including rating subjects triggers billing. Also, in [0190], [0191], Petras teaches that as subjects pertaining to a sponsor are input in to the Sponsor Management Software the fees subsequently due are generated and the sponsor is billed and the sponsor responds by paying electronically).
Regarding claim 15, Petras teaches the elements of claim 14 as shown above. Petras further teaches wherein triggering occurs upon specified, predetermined future, at least one of data capture, accreditation, and data of compensation at least one of which is stored in at least one database (Petras teaches compensation or compensation due triggered by data capture will also occur for any future data captures as [0170], [0185], [0190], [0191] teach the system reacts to each recognized notice or activity including rating subjects. Petras teaches in [0170] that upon receiving a notice, a sponsor electronically provides a payment. Petras in [0185] teaches user activities affect the WOM database tables which are used as input to the sponsor billing module which provides for automated billing…which is interpreted as recognizing user activity with content including rating subjects triggers billing. Also, in [0190], [0191], Petras teaches that as subjects pertaining to a sponsor are input in to the Sponsor Management Software the fees subsequently due are generated and the sponsor is billed and the sponsor responds by paying electronically).
Regarding claim 16, Petras teaches the elements of claim 14 as shown above. Petras further teaches wherein data is automatically sent to provide compensation utilizing one or more servers upon triggering (Petras teaches in [0170] that upon receiving a notice, a sponsor electronically provides a payment. Petras in [0185] teaches user activities affect the WOM database tables which are used as input to the sponsor billing module which provides for automated billing…which is interpreted as recognizing user activity with content triggers billing. Also, in [0190], [0191], Petras teaches that as subjects pertaining to a sponsor are input in to the Sponsor Management Software the fees subsequently due are generated and the sponsor is billed and the sponsor responds by paying electronically; system including server and user computers– [0155]-[0157], Figs. 1A, 1B, 1C).
Regarding claim 17, Petras teaches the elements of claim 15 as shown above. Petras further teaches wherein data is automatically sent to provide compensation utilizing one or more servers upon triggering (Petras teaches in [0170] that upon receiving a notice, a sponsor electronically provides a payment. Petras in [0185] teaches user activities affect the WOM database tables which are used as input to the sponsor billing module which provides for automated billing…which is interpreted as recognizing user activity with content triggers billing. Also, in [0190], [0191], Petras teaches that as subjects pertaining to a sponsor are input in to the Sponsor Management Software the fees subsequently due are generated and the sponsor is billed and the sponsor responds by paying electronically; system including server and user computers– [0155]-[0157], Figs. 1A, 1B, 1C).
Regarding claim 18, Petras teaches the elements of claim 1 as shown above. Petras further teaches wherein at least one non-recipient evaluator of the entity provides an evaluation absent the receipt of a product or service provided by the entity (reviews by Correspondents or Managing Members - [0327], [0349]).
Regarding claim 19, Petras teaches the elements of claim 1 as shown above. Petras further teaches wherein entities are matched based upon at least one of accreditation and lack of accreditation (search for evaluated subjects including based on ratings and receive results i.e., “matches” of subjects returned fitting the search criteria – [0328], [0333]-[0336], Figs. 42, 43-A, 43-B).
Regarding claim 20, Petras teaches the elements of claim 1 as shown above. Petras further teaches comprising accumulating evaluations associated with the at least one entity to create an accreditation associated with the