DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Applicant’s arguments filed 6/27/2025 have been fully considered.
The 35 USC 102 and 103 rejections are withdrawn in view of the applicant’s amendment and arguments.
However, the 35 USC 101 rejection remain outstanding.
Applicant’s representative argues that:
“ amended independent claim 2 recites an integration into a practical application. In particular, amended independent claim 2 recites using information (e.g., compute trust score for one or more community members, determine whether first community member is associated with the one or more community members, determine level of trust for first community member based on the analysis of the social network community graph and the trust score) to take certain actions (e.g., determine a product or service to offer the first community member) that are meaningful limitations that integrate the alleged judicial exception into a practical application.
Applicant’s representative then argues similarly noted in Example 46 of the PEG Oct. 2019 Update, Appendix 2, pages 30-41 which states “with respect to limitation (d) of eligible claim 2 of Example 46, the guidance noted that “using the information obtained via the judicial exception to take corrective action and control the injection molding apparatus in a particular way is an ‘other meaningful limitation’ that integrates the judicial exception into the overall control scheme and accordingly practically applies the exception, such that the claim is not directed to the judicial exception.” Id., Appendix 1, p. 37 (emphasis added). Likewise, limitation (d) of eligible claim 3 of Example 46 also, “does not merely link the judicial exception to a technical field, but instead adds a meaningful limitation in that it employs the information provided by the judicial exception (the mental analysis of whether the animal is exhibiting an aberrant behavioral pattern) to operate the gate control mechanism and route the animals, thus avoiding the need for the farmer to visually evaluate the behavior of each animal in the herd on a continual basis.” Jd., Appendix 1, p. 40 (emphasis added)”.
Applicant’s representative then states:
“Similarly, amended independent claim 2 also recites additional elements beyond any alleged judicial exception and adds more than merely linking the alleged judicial exception to a technical field. Amended independent claim 2 uses information to take certain actions that are, at least, meaningful limitations that integrate the alleged judicial exception into a practical application. For example, amended independent claim 2 recites a method including a computing device computing a trust score for one or more community members based on a length of time that the one or more community members have been associated with the entity, determining whether a first community member is associated with the one or more community members, and using the trust score to determine a level of trust associated with a first community member and a product of service to offer the first community member.
In response, the Examiner states that the claims are directed to an abstract idea in regard to the recited functions of : generating ...; computing…; and determining, based on the determined level of trust associated with the first community member, a product or service to offer the first community member as recited in independent claim 2 and as similarly recited in independent claims 9 and 16.
The functions of “generating”, “computing”, and “determining” involve mental processes. The computing functions involve a mathematical function and or a mental step.
The claimed concept falls into the category of functions of performing mental steps and the organizing human activities such as managing commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) because it amounts to the functions of providing an offer for an entity to provide one of a product or service to a first community member, the offer including a rate. The BRI of the claimed limitations describe functions of denying or performing a financial transaction of an offer to an individual based on the level of score of a community member.
The amended independent claim 2 taken as an example recite: compute a trust score for one or more community members, determine whether first community member is associated with the one or more community members, and determine a level of trust for first community member.
In response, the 2019 Guidance identifies “concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)” as mental processes, and a category of abstract ideas. (2019 Guidance at 52); see also id., n.15 (quoting Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1139 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mental processes can include claim steps that may be performed “mentally or by pencil and paper’’)); see also Versata Dev. Grp., Inc. vy. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Courts 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.’’)). The determining and computing concepts are therefore viewed as mental processes.
Regarding Step 2B, the applicant’s representative argues that the additional elements whether taken alone or in combination amount to significantly more than the judicial exception of an abstract idea..
In response, the claims merely recite a generic computing device which receives data to from a generic server on a network website for performing expected functions.
The claimed computing device and server and network are interpreted as being recited at a high level of generality and even if the claims recited in the affirmative, having a computing device similar to a processor to perform the generic computer functions of determining, computing and generating data. Such do not amount to a significantly more than the abstract idea. Even the applicant’s specification does not provide any improved computer or technology rather generically applies the abstract idea to a generic computer.
These types of functions are functions that a generic computer may achieve and they are also functions which were similarly found to be abstract by the Courts. The claimed server and network are not performing any functions and also are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function having data or hosting information) such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, the sever and network and computing device do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Applicant’s representative then argues that the additional elements are not well-understood, routine or conventional because they provide another factor for reciting more than an abstract idea, and therefore claim 2 recites significantly more than an abstract idea under Step 2B.
In response, a showing of not having a lacking of “something more” under Step 2B analysis does not imply a lacking of showing of evidence of claimed features. The claimed computing device, server and network are seen as one or more computers in a generic network for performing the abstract concept. The previously applied references in the prior Office actions all teach at least a computing device, a server and a network for performing the claimed invention.
Applicant is to be reminded that Court has guided that: “[t]he ‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 188—89 (1981) (emphasis added). The court further emphasizes that “eligibility and novelty are separate inquiries.” Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2017); see also Affinity Labs of Tex., LLCv. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1263 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that “even assuming” that a particular claimed feature was novel does not “avoid the problem of abstractness”).
Accordingly, the applicant’s arguments are not convincing.
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 2-21 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Subject Matter Eligibility Standard
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Specifically, claims 2 and 16 are directed to a method. Claim 9 is directed to a device or system. Each of the claims falls under one of the four statutory classes of invention.
If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea).
The claims recite the following abstract idea absent the bolded limitations:
Claim 2 as amended now recites :
generating, a social network community graph for an entity, wherein the social network community graph connects the entity to a first community member who is connected to a plurality of community members;
generating, by a computing device and using data received from a server hosting a social network website, a social network community graph for an entity, wherein the social network community graph connects the entity to a plurality of community members;
computing, by the computing device, a trust score for one or more community members of the plurality of community members based on a length of time that the one or more community members have been associated with the entity;
determining, by the computing device, whether a first community member of the plurality of community members is associated with the one or more community members;
based on the determination that the first community member is associated with the one or more community members, analyzing, using the computing device, the social network community graph and the trust score for the one or more community members to determine a level of trust associated with the first community member; and
determining, based on the determined level of trust associated with the first community member, a product or service to offer the first community member.
As per claim 2, applicant is to be noted that the steps or functions “generating”, “computing” and “determining” involve mental processes and/or generic computer functions.
Claim 3 recites receiving telematics data from at least one telematics device disposes withing at least one vehicle associated with the one or more community members wherein the trust score is based on the telematics data.
Functions of receiving data involves data gathering data as noted by the Courts.
Claim 4 recites determining using the computing device and based on the determined level of trust associated with the first community member, a rate for insuring the first community member.
Accordingly, Claim 4 recites data necessary to perform the method of claim 2.
Claim 5 recites wherein the rate is further based on one more factors, and wherein the one or more factors include at least one of an average age of the one or more community members, a proportion of the one or more community members that are male and female, an average number of accidents for the one or more community members, a location of the one or more community members, or a proportion of the one or more community members that smoke.
Accordingly Claim 5 recites data necessary to perform the method of claim 2.
Claim 6 recites wherein the one or more factors are weighted.
Accordingly, Claim 6 recites data necessary to perform the method of claim 2.
Claim 7 recites wherein the first community member is not associated with the entity.
Accordingly, Claim 7 recites data necessary to perform the method of claim 2. Functions of receiving data involves data gathering data as noted by the Courts.
Claim 8 recites providing a discount to one or more of the first community member and the one or more community members based on receiving the one or more factors.
Accordingly, Claim 8 recite a business decision and data necessary to perform the method of claim 2.
Claim 9 recites:
generate a social network community graph for an entity using data received the social network community graph connecting the entity to a plurality of community members;
compute, by the computing device, a trust score for one or more community members of the plurality of community members based on a length of time that the one or more community members have been associated with the entity;
determine, by the computing device, whether a first community member of the plurality of community members is associated with the one or more community members;
based on the determination that the first community member is associated with the one or more community members, analyze, using the computing device, the social network community graph and the trust score for the one or more community members to determine
a level of trust associated with the first community member; determine, by the computing device and based on the determined level of trust associated with the first community member, a product or a service to offer the first community member.
As per claim 9, applicant is to be noted that the steps or functions of “generate”, “compute” and “determine” involve mental processes and/or generic computer functions.
Claim 10 recites: to receive telematics data from at least one telematics device disposed within one or more vehicles associated with the one or more of community members, wherein the trust score is using based on the telematics data.
Accordingly, functions of receiving data involves data gathering data as noted by the Courts.
Claim 11 recites: to determine, based on the determined level of trust associated with the first community member, a rate of insuring the first community member.
Accordingly, Claim 11 recites data necessary to perform the functions of claim 9.
Claim 12 recites :
wherein the rate is further based on one or more factors, and wherein the one or more factors include one or more of an average age of the one or more community members, a proportion of the one or more community members that are male and female, an average number of accidents for the one or more community members, a location of the one or more community members, or a proportion of the one or more community members that smoke.
Accordingly, Claim 12 recites data necessary to perform the functions of claim 9.
Claim 13 recites wherein the one or more factors are weighted.
Accordingly, Claim 13 recites data necessary to perform the functions of claim 9.
Claim 14 recites wherein the first community member is not associated with the entity.
Accordingly, functions of receiving data involves data gathering data as noted by the Courts.
Claim 15 recites to: provide a discount to one or more of the first community member and the one or more community members based on the one or more factors.
Accordingly, Claim 15 recite a business decision and data necessary to perform the functions of claim 9.
Claim 16 recites:
generate, using data received from a server hosting a social network website, a social network community graph for an entity, wherein the social network community graph connects the entity to a plurality of community members;
compute, by the computing device, a trust score for one or more community members of the plurality of community members based on a length of time that the one or more community members is associated with the one or more community members;
determine, by the computing device, whether a first community member of the plurality of community members is associated with the one or more community members;
based on the determination that the first community member is associated with the one or more community members, analyze, using the computing device, the social network community graph and the trust score for the one or more community members to determine a level of trust associated with the first community member;
determine, by the computing device and based on the determined level of trust associated with the first community member, a product or service to offer the first community member;
Claim 17 recites: to: receive telematics data from at least one telematics device disposed within at least one vehicle associated with the one or more community members, or the entity, wherein the trust score is based on the telematics data.
Accordingly, functions of receiving data involves data gathering data as noted by the Courts.
Claim 18 recites:
determine, based on the determined level of trust associated with the first community member, a rate for insuring the first community member.
Accordingly, Claim 18 recites data necessary to perform the functions of claim 16.
Claim 19 recites: wherein the rate is further based on one or more factors, and wherein the one or more factors include at least one of an average age of the one or more community members, a proportion of the one or more community members that are male and female, an average number of accidents for the one or more community members, a location of the one or more community members, or a proportion of the one or more community members that smoke.
Accordingly, Claim 19 recites data necessary to perform the functions of claim 16.
Claim 20 recites: wherein the first community member is not associated with the entity.
Accordingly, Claim 20 recites data necessary to perform the functions of claim 16.
Claim 21 recites: wherein the one or more factors are received from one or more of the first community member and the plurality of community members, and
wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the computing device to:
provide a discount to one or more of the first community member and the one or more community members based on the one or more factors.
Accordingly, Claim 21 recites data necessary to perform the method of claim 16. Providing a discount involves a business decision.
Here, the claimed concept falls into the category of functions of organizing human activities such as managing commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) because it amounts to the functions of providing an offer for an entity to provide one of a product or service to a first community member, the offer including a rate.
The BRI of the claimed limitations describe functions of denying or performing a financial transaction of an offer to an individual.
Step 2A, Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, In particular, the clams recite the bolded limitations noted above as being understood to be additional limitations:
The limitations performing steps of ”receiving data” merely involve data gathering functions. Functions of “generating”, “computing”, “analyzing” and “determining” data amount to instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic processor or computer. These limitations merely amount to instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(1) ), also see applicant's specification for guiding interpretation of these claim features, describing implementation with generic commercially available devices or any machine capable of executing a set of instructions, similarly describing usage of general and special purpose computer and “any kind of digital computer” including generic commercially available devices.
The claimed “processors”, “server”, and “computing device” are similarly understood in light of applicant's specification as mere usage of any arrangement of computer software or hardware intermediate components potentially using networks to communicate "now available or later developed may be used” which is properly understood to be mere instructions to apply the abstraction using a computer or device.
Performing steps by a generic machine, server or computer processors with memories merely limits the abstraction to computer field by execution by generic computers. See MPEP 2106.05¢h).
As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), limitations which amount to instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool, limitations which amount to insignificant extra-solution activity, and limitations which amount to generally linking to a particular technological environment do not integrate a practical exception into a practical application.
The claims recite receiving data. The breadth of these limitations reasonably includes collecting information.
Receiving data from a device is similar to Alappat, which as noted in MPEP 2106. 05(b)(1) is superseded, and the correct analysis is to look whether the added elements integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more than the judicial exception.
Consideration of these steps as a combination does not change the analysis as they do not add anything compared to when the steps are considered separately. The claims recite a particular sequence of functions of generating an offer to provide a service to a community member, the offer including an offer rate.
Performance of these steps or functions technologically may present a meaningful limit to the scope of the claim but does not reasonably integrate the abstraction into a practical application.
Step 2B: The elements discussed above with respect to the practical application in Step 2A, prong 2 are equally applicable to consideration of whether the claims amount to significantly more. Accordingly, the clams fail to recite additional elements which, when considered individually and in combination, amount to significantly more. Reconsideration of these elements identified as insignificant extra-solution activity as part of Step 2B does not change the analysis.
Receiving data amounts to receiving and transmitting information over a network has been recognized by the courts as well- understood, routine, and conventional (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), citing Symantec, 835 F.3d at 1321, 120 OSPQ2d at 1362 (Utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TL Communications LEC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, G10, L18 USPO2d 1744, 1748 (ed. Cir. 2016) Casing a telephone for image transmission); OFF Techs., fac. v. Amazon.com, fic., 788 B.Ad 1359, 1363, LiS USPO2d 1090, 1093 (ed, Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network}, buySAFE, fic. v. Google, Inc.. 768 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1996 (Pod, Cyr. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Positively reciting a device or a machine or processor and memory storing software instructions does not change the analysis as these aspects are properly considered as additional elements which amount to instructions to apply it with a computer.
These claimed elements also as found in the dependent claims are also recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component.
In processing the claims, it is noted that the recitation of these additional elements do not impact the analysis of the claims because these elements in combination are noted only to be a general purpose computer for performing basic or routine computer functions. These claimed elements are noted to a be a generic device for collecting data and performing routine and conventional functions. These additional elements do not overcome the analysis as these elements are merely considered as additional elements which amount to instructions to be applied to the generic computer.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claimed “processors”, “computing device” and “server” are recited at a high level of generality such they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the independent claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The dependent claim(s) when analyzed and each taken as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANTZY POINVIL whose telephone number is (571)272-6797. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00AM to 5:30PM.
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, Michael Anderson can be reached on 571-270-0508. 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.
/fp/
/FRANTZY POINVIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3698
July 3, 2025