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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 12 and 19 are amended are amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 101 rejection have been considered but are not persuasive.
The applicant argues the claims feature a practical application and an improvement to computer functionality and network security technology by focusing on logical structures and processes for security. The ordered combination of receiving requests, computing thresholds, multi-source retrieval, list generation, user score determination, and conditional execution, by a trust mediator agent, enhance network security without preempting risk mitigation.
The Office asserts that the listed processes can be performed without the use of a trust mediator agent and therefore merely use computers as a tool.
The Office sees no correlation between the decision in Desjardins, directed toward training a model on sequential tasks while protecting prior knowledge, and the present claims. The Office sees no improvement to computer technology in the present claims.
The Office also sees no correlation between Example 35 claim 2, where code verification integrates fraud prevention into a practical application for ATM transactions.
The applicant argues the claims provide a particular solution to a particular problem however, the Office asserts that the particular solution is merely the generation of a trust score and whether it exceeds a threshold. Using a computer to generate a trust score and determine if the trust score meets a certain threshold is merely adding the words “apply it”, or the like, to the abstract idea.
The 112 rejection of the claims is withdrawn in view of the claim amendments. A new rejection is made in view of the claim amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph 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 the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 1-20 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 or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claims recite a trust mediator agent performing certain actions however the specification does not support these actions being performed by a trust mediator agent but by a trust mediator which are separate and distinct components.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s):
1. A method comprising:
receiving, by a trust mediator agent, a request to perform a transfer from a requesting device associated with a user;
computing, by the trust mediator agent, a threshold trust score for accessing data stored in a memory device which is to be used for the transfer based on attributes of the transfer;
retrieving, by the trust mediator agent, identification data associated with the user of the requesting device from an external terminal, a database, and a social networking website;
generating, by the trust mediator agent, a list of identification data including the
retrieved identification data;
determining, by the trust mediator agent, a user trust score associated with
the user of the requesting device based on the generated list of identification data; and
executing, by the trust mediator agent, the transfer via a computer network in response to the user trust score associated with the user of the requesting device being greater than the threshold trust score.
The underlined elements are certain methods of organizing human activity, fundamental economic practices or principles including risk mitigation because the claims recite determining a risk level for performing a transfer and performing the transfer if the risk level is above a threshold risk level.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims also recite performing the abstract idea using a trust mediator agent, a memory device, a requesting device, a terminal, database and website, adding the words “apply it”, or the like, to the abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not include more than the abstract idea and the additional elements mentioned. The requesting device merely represents the vehicle by which a requester makes the transfer request, according to the specification. The identification data and trust scores are all associated with the requester and not specifically the device, so the device is merely a tool. Claims 12 and 19 are similarly rejected but include a system and a non-transitory computer-readable medium which amount to adding the words “apply it”, or the like to the judicial exception.
The dependent claims merely narrow the abstract idea. As a whole and in combination the claims do not reflect integration into a practical application or significantly more.
Claims 2-5, 8 and 9 narrow the idea of computing, claim 6 does not further define the identification data of claim 1, and claims 7 and 10 merely perform comparing steps, all of which narrow the abstract idea. The remaining dependent claims are similar.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM E RANKINS whose telephone number is (571)270-3465. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-530 M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bennett Sigmond can be reached on 303-297-4411. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WILLIAM E RANKINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Prosecution Insights