DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the applicant’s communication filed on 9/15/25, wherein:
Claims 1-15 are currently 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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an electronic system” in claim 1 and claim 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claim 1 recites a method and therefore, falls into a statutory category. Similar independent claim 8 recites a machine and therefore, also falls into a statutory category.
Step 2A – Prong 1 (Is a Judicial Exception Recited?): The underlined limitations of
providing a graphical user interface (GUI) configured to receive a suspected lie in digital media from a human agent;
transmitting the suspected lie to an electronic system configured for a universal method of dissection;
determining a consensual truth of the suspected lie based on a plurality of machine- readable verdicts; and
distributing a log of the determined consensual truth of the suspected lie to the human agent who provided the suspected lie;
where determining the consensual truth comprises:
assigning a plurality of human-like or human agents to a case corresponding to the suspected lie via the electronic system;
receiving, via the electronic system, a machine readable verdict from each of the plurality of agents that indicates a truth of the suspected lie; and
determining the consensual truth of the suspected lie based on the plurality of machine readable verdicts received from each of the plurality of agents
are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting:
Claim 1: graphical user interface (GUI) and an electronic system configured for a universal method of dissection
Claim 8: graphical user interface (GUI), an electronic system configured for a universal method of dissection, and processing circuitry,
nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps identified as abstract from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A-Prong 2 (Is the Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?): This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of
Claim 1: graphical user interface (GUI) and an electronic system configured for a universal method of dissection; and
Claim 8: graphical user interface (GUI), an electronic system configured for a universal method of dissection, and processing circuitry.
The computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processing device performing generic computer functions), such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Additionally, the transmitting, receiving, and distributing limitations may be considered insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considered both individually and as a whole. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to Significantly More than the Judicial Exception?): The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Further, the claims simply append well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, in the form of the extra-solution activity. The courts have recognized that the computer functions claimed (the transmitting, distributing, and receiving limitations) as WURC (see 2106.05(d), identifying receiving or transmitting data over a network as WURC, as recognized by Symantec). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible, as when viewed individually, and as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more to the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-7 and 9-14 merely add further details of the abstract steps/elements recited in claims 1 or 8 without including a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, dependent claims 2-7 and 9-14 are also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claims 2 and 9 provide further descriptive limitations of elements describing the suspected lie as lies, misinformation, and disinformation, which may provide further helpful context for the claimed invention, but do not confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance is still not more than the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention.
Dependent claims 3 and 10 further limit the abstract idea by introducing the limitation of at least one step comprising a parallel manual and automated method, which does not include a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 4 and 11 further limit the abstract idea by introducing the limitation of using a sequence of manual events to train the automation, which does not include a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 5 and 12 further limit the abstract idea by introducing the limitation of structuring dialogue to perform at least one of the steps, which does not include a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 6 and 13 further limit the abstract idea by introducing the limitation of structuring the dialog manually, automated, or a combination thereof, which does not include a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 7 and 14 further limit the abstract idea by introducing the limitation of assuring anonymity of humans participating in the steps, which does not include a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
In light of the detailed explanation and evidence provided above, the Examiner asserts that the claimed invention, when the limitations are considered individually and as whole, is directed towards an abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Examiner has reviewed applicant’s disclosure and submits that these added limitations find no support in the specification as currently written, and is, therefore, directed to new matter.
Claim 1: “transmitting the suspected lie to an electronic system configured for a universal method of dissection; assigning a plurality of human-like or human agents to a case corresponding to the suspected lie via the electronic system; receiving, via the electronic system, a machine readable verdict from each of the plurality of agents that indicates a truth of the suspected lie” is not described in the specification as written. Applicant did not cite any specific portion of the specification for support. However, Examiner reviewed the entirety of the specification, and did not find the cited limitation, particularly the underlined portions. Claim 8 includes similar limitations.
The claims not specifically enumerated above are rejected as dependent upon one or more of the enumerated claims.
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 regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim limitation “transmitting the suspected lie to an electronic system configured for a universal method of dissection; assigning a plurality of human-like or human agents to a case corresponding to the suspected lie via the electronic system; receiving, via the electronic system, a machine readable verdict from each of the plurality of agents that indicates a truth of the suspected lie” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The electronic system is not defined in the Specification as a particular structure, material, or acts, which may perform the functions claimed (i.e., the transmitting, assigning, and receiving). Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 15 states, in part, “processing circuitry configured to perform any of the steps of claim 1.” As a dependent claim of claim 1 (claim 15 includes a reference to a claim previously set forth, claim 1, and a further limitation of the subject matter, making it a dependent claim), claim 15 must include every limitation of the claim from which it depends. By indicated that the circuitry may perform any of the steps of claim 1, rather than all of the steps of claim 1, claim 15 indicates that it does not include every limitation of claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Notice
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Myslinski (US 20130158984), in view of Bradley et al. (US 20190082224).
Referring to claim 1:
Myslinski discloses a method for controlling pernicious lies in digital media, the method comprising: providing a graphical user interface (GUI) configured to receive a suspected lie in digital media from a human agent {Myslinski [0101]-[0104][0309]-[0312]; In some embodiments, a user's mobile device (e.g., smart phone or tablet) is able to be placed on a print material, scans the print material with a camera on one side and displays the print material on the mobile device screen on the opposite side along with any fact checking and/or supplemental information generated by analysis of the print material [0310] and The information to be monitored is any information including, but not limited to, television audio, video or text, other text, radio, television broadcasts/shows, radio broadcasts, word processing data and/or documents, email, Twitter (tweets), message boards, web pages including, but not limited to, Facebook.RTM. postings and web logs, any computing device communication, telephone calls, face-to-face conversations, VoIP calls (e.g. Skype.TM.), video conferencing, live speech and any other information [0101]};
transmitting the suspected lie to an electronic system configured for a universal method of dissection {Myslinski [0309]-[0312]; the camera 3206 acquires the data, and some or all of the processing, fact checking, searching and/or indicating occurs on another device (e.g., in the cloud). For example, the camera 3206 acquires newspaper data, sends the data or identifying information to the cloud for converting, parsing, fact checking, and then the could sends the results to the camera 3208 (or directly to the display 3208) for display on the display 3208 [0311]};
determining a consensual truth of the suspected lie based on a plurality of machine-readable verdicts {Myslinski [0082][0090][0098][0104][0129][0317]; In the step 104, the information is fact checked. Fact checking includes comparing the information to one or more sources of information to determine the validity, accuracy, quality, character and/or type of the information. . . The results are able to be any type including, but not limited to, binary, Boolean (True/False), text, numerical or any other format [0104] where the result is the verdict}; and
distributing a log of the determined consensual truth of the suspected lie to the human agent who provided the suspected lie {Myslinski [0082] [0090][0098][0104][0105][0129][0311]; After fact checking is performed, an indication or alert is used to indicate/inform/alert a user of a status of the information including, but not limited to, correct/true/valid or incorrect/false/invalid. In addition to correct and incorrect, other gray area indicators are possible including, but not limited to, "unknown," "depending on the circumstances" or "close to the truth." [0098]}.
Myslinski discloses a system for verifying the correctness of information and providing fact checking results (abstract). Myslinski does not disclose where determining the consensual truth comprises: where determining the consensual truth comprises: assigning a plurality of human-like or human agents to a case corresponding to the suspected lie via the electronic system; receiving, via the electronic system, a machine readable verdict from each of the plurality of agents that indicates a truth of the suspected lie; and determining the consensual truth of the suspected lie based on the plurality of machine readable verdicts received from each of the plurality of agents.
However, Bradley discloses a similar system for rating truthfulness of content (abstract). Bradley discloses where determining the consensual truth comprises: assigning a plurality of human-like or human agents to a case corresponding to the suspected lie via the electronic system {Bradley [0048][0068][0082][0084][0086][0088]; the system may note the user's interest in particular topics or subject matter. As a result, the system may notify the user of new content on specified topics of interest [0068] and The process may begin by communicating content to a user (step 602) [0082] and each piece of content is assigned or associated with a specific identifier [0086] where the specific identifier corresponding to each piece of content which is used to compile the ratings as in [0088] is interpreted as a case, or this specific situation};
receiving, via the electronic system, a machine readable verdict from each of the plurality of agents that indicates a truth of the suspected lie {Bradley [0084][0085][0090]; The rating may also include a rating for the truthfulness of the content. In one embodiment, the user may rate the content from 0% true (or false) to 100% true (or completely true) [0084] where the system is using the rating/verdict and therefore, it must be machine readable}; and
determining the consensual truth of the suspected lie based on the plurality of machine readable verdicts received from each of the plurality of agents {Bradley [0087][0090]; the system compiles all ratings for the content [0087] and The rating information may specify how the user upvoted or downvoted the content, rated/ranked bias, and the truthfulness assigned to the content by the user. The rating information may also show how all other users have rated the content. To the extent user profiles or associated information is available, it may be utilized to show ratings by demographics, cohorts, groups, self-selecting individuals, or others may be shown (e.g., forty percent of teenagers voted this false with a 30% liberal bias, 20% of African Americans upvoted this as true with a 25% conservative bias, etc.) [0090]}.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed in Myslinski to incorporate assigning the lie to agents, receiving a verdict from the agents, and determining the truth based on the verdicts as taught by Bradley because this would provide a manner for determining truthfulness of content (Bradley [0020]), thus aiding the user by indicating whether content is actually true.
Referring to claim 2:
Myslinski, as modified by Bradley, discloses wherein the suspected lie comprises one or more of the group comprising: lies, misinformation, and disinformation in digital media {Myslinski [0083][0129][0200]; Examples of information or statistics presented when an entity appears include, but are not limited to the number of lies, misstatements, truthful statements, hypocritical statements or actions, questionable statements, spin, or any other characterizations [0129] and the fact that any re-broadcasts would catch any misinformation could potentially discourage misinformation from being presented in the initial broadcast [0200]}.
Referring to claim 3:
Myslinski, as modified by Bradley,discloses wherein at least one of the steps comprises a parallel manual and automated method which enables improving automation while sustaining auditability {Myslinski [0082][0111][0135][0138][0158][0200]; the facts are first checked manually or automatically which is able to occur in real-time or non-real-time [0082] and the fact checking system has the ability to learn [0135] and further, the limitation does not require steps to be performed or limit the claim to a particular structure, does not limit claim scope, and therefore, receives little patentable weight}.
Referring to claim 4:
Myslinski, as modified by Bradley, discloses wherein the parallel manual and automated method further enables using a sequence of manual events to train the automation {Myslinski [0133]-[0135][0138]; Learning is also able to include analyzing archived data of sources to determine the reliability of the sources. In some embodiments, if a characterization or other item has not been learned, an expandable list of options is presented to a user for the user to select an option [0135]}.
Referring to claim 5:
Myslinski, as modified by Bradley, discloses structuring dialogue to perform at least one of the steps {Myslinski [0090][0206]; an additional question is automatically presented (e.g. on a teleprompter or in his earpiece), so that the host does not have to formulate the additional question [0090]}.
Referring to claim 6:
Myslinski, as modified by Bradley, discloses wherein structuring the dialogue is performed manually, automated, or a combination of manually and automated {Myslinski [0090][0206]; the fact checker indicates a status of a comment to the host/interviewer of a show (e.g. so that the host is able to ask a follow-up question). In some embodiments, the fact checker comes up with the follow-up question automatically (e.g. follow up question is displayed on teleprompter) [0206]}.
Referring to claim 8:
Claim 8 is rejected on a similar basis to claim 1, with the following additions:
Myslinski discloses a computation node (1000) for controlling pernicious lies in digital media, the computation node comprising: processing circuitry {Myslinski [0119]; a hardware structure suitable for implementing the computing device 400 includes a network interface 402, a memory 404, a processor 406, I/O device(s) 408, a bus 410 and a storage device 412 [0119]}.
Referring to claims 9-13:
Claims 9-13 are rejected on a similar basis to claims 2-6.
Referring to claim 15:
Claim 15 is rejected on a similar basis to claim 1, with the following additions:
Myslinski discloses a computation node for controlling pernicious lies in digital media, the computation node comprising: processing circuitry configured to perform any of the steps of claim 7; and power supply circuitry configured to supply power to the computation node {Myslinski [0119][0421]; a hardware structure suitable for implementing the computing device 400 includes a network interface 402, a memory 404, a processor 406, I/O device(s) 408, a bus 410 and a storage device 412 [0119] and a device's power supply 6802 is operatively coupled to a fact checking system [0421]}.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Myslinski (US 20130158984), in view of Bradley et al. (US 20190082224), and further in view of Galuten (US 20180239832).
Referring to claim 7:
Myslinski discloses a system for verifying the correctness of information and providing fact checking results (abstract). Myslinski does not disclose assuring anonymity of humans participating in any of the steps.
However, Galuten discloses a similar system for determining news veracity (abstract). Galuten discloses assuring anonymity of humans participating in any of the steps {Galuten [0063]; An ARDSP is an entity that manages the reviewer data, makes it available in anonymous fashion [0063]}.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed in Myslinski to incorporate anonymity as taught by Galuten because this would provide a manner for ensuring a user’s privacy and confidentiality (Galuten [0063]), thus aiding the user by allowing them to share their opinion without fear of reprisal.
Referring to claim 14:
Claim 14 is rejected on a similar basis to claim 7.
Response to Arguments
Status of the Claims
Examiner has no comment on the status of the claims.
Interview Request
Examiner invites Applicant to call the Examiner at the below listed number in order to schedule an interview if desired.
Claim Amendments
Examiner has no comment.
Rejection under 35 USC 101
Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea and alternatively, even if an abstract idea is included, the claims provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Remarks 5. Examiner respectfully disagrees, for all the reasons above. Further, this amounts to unsupported attorney argument, as Applicant has not provided any supporting rationale.
Applicant further argues that “by explicitly referring to an ‘electronic system’ that performs the steps, the process could not be performed ‘in the mind.’” Remarks 5.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Supreme Court has recognized that claims can recite a mental process, even if the claims are performed on a computer. Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S at 67, 175 USPQ at 675 (concluding that the algorithm could be performed mentally even though the claims were carried out via “existing computers long in use”). As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind." Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’); Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324, 117 USPQ2d 1693, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that computer-implemented method for "anonymous loan shopping" was an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer"). As is explained above, with the exception of the generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claim themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally, or with pen and paper.
Rejection under 35 USC 103
Applicant argues the prior art does not include the amended claim limitations. Examiner has updated the rejection to include new art which address these claim limitations (see above).
Applicant specifically argues that Myslinski does not “cover the case of multiple humans in a case which helps train such fact detection processes that Myslinski could use” and that Myslinski does not address the problem “in the training data” and providing a platform for collecting it. Remarks 7. Examiner notes that Bradley is used to treat limitations regarding the use of multiple humans in the case and that claim 1 does not address “training data.”
Applicant argues that Bradley “has nothing to do with the claimed features.” Examiner respectfully disagrees for all the reasons above. Bradley is directed to rating truth of content (abstract). Applicant does not provide specific claim limitations which are not taught by Bradley.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Keren (US 20200311790), a system for electronic commerce and financial transactions, which includes determining if an offering to sell an asset is fraudulent (abstract). See also [0142].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARRIE S GILKEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7119. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-4:30 CT and Friday 7:30-12 CT.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached on 571-270-3445. 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.
/CARRIE S GILKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626