DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
The following is a Non-final Office Action in response to amendments and remarks filed 18 February 2026.
Claims 2, 7, 10, 12, 17, 20, and 22 have been amended.
Claims 23-25 have been added.
Claims 2-5, 7, 10, 12-15, 17, 20, and 22-25 are pending and have been examined.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 18 February 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remaining arguments filed 18 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the §101 rejection is now moot based upon the amendments; however the Examiner respectfully disagrees. These arguments are not compliant under 37 CFR 1.111(b) as they amount to a mere allegation of patent eligibility. Applicants argue that the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection under the Alice Corp. vs. CLS Bank Int’l be withdrawn; however the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Contrary to Applicants’ assertion that the claims are not organizing human activities (collecting and analyzing product reviews as a marketing activity) as well as a mental process (reading the product reviews for patterns and making a evaluation or judgement upon review content), the Examiner notes that organizing feedback or product reviews by reading and analyzing said feedback or reviews and provide an alert which is a marketing/business activity as well as judgement or opinion regarding the feedback in order to bucket and determine if a reputation event has occurred is a function that businesses, marketing firms, media outlets etc. have traditionally performed/provided for companies in order to ascertain the public perception. Next, the claims are not directed to a practical application of the concept. The claims do not result in improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. They do not effect a particular treatment for a disease. They are not applied with or by a particular machine. They do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. And they are not applied in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception (i.e., organizing historical feedback from users) to a particular technological environment (i.e., with the use of generic computers or generic computing components). Here, again as noted in the previous rejection, the claim only recites one additional element – using one or more processors (or computer program product of claim 20) to perform the steps. The processor (or computer program product of claim 20) steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Specifically the claims amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or invoking computers as tools by adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims recitation of the “a memory coupled to the processor and configured to provide the processor with instructions” and “in a real-time via an online reputation management platform” only generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea, even when considered as a whole.
Applicants further argue that the claims are similar to the McRO decision; however the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In McRO, the Federal Circuit held the claimed methods of automatic lip synchronization and facial expression animation using computer-implemented rules patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101, because they were not directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A of the USPTO's SME guidance). The basis for the McRO court's decision was that the claims were directed to an improvement in computer-related technology (allowing computers to produce "accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters" that previously could only be produced by human animators), and thus did not recite a concept similar to previously identified abstract ideas. As part of its analysis, the McRO court examined the specification, which described the claimed invention as improving computer animation through the use of specific rules, rather than human artists, to set morph weights (relating to facial expressions as an animated character speaks) and transition parameters between phonemes (relating to sounds made when speaking). As explained in the specification, human artists did not use the claimed rules, and instead relied on subjective determinations to set the morph weights and manipulate the animated face to match pronounced phonemes. The McRO court thus relied on the specification's explanation of how the claimed rules enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could not be automated when determining that the claims were directed to improvements in computer animation instead of an abstract idea. The McRO court indicated that it was the incorporation of the particular claimed rules in computer animation that "improved [the] existing technological process.” Here, unlike McRO, a computer was merely used as a tool to perform an existing process i.e. gathering and combining feedback data in order to output a result based upon collected feedback. As such, the claims are not analogous to the McRO decision and the rejection not overcome.
In response to Applicants’ arguments that the claims inventive concept may arise "in the ordered combination of the limitations" similar to those found in Bascom; the Examiner respectfully disagrees and this case is unlike Bascom, where, “[o]n [a] limited record” and when viewed in favor of the patentee, the claims alleged a “technical improvement over prior art ways of filtering [Internet] content.” 827 F.3d at 1350. The patent in Bascom did not merely move existing content filtering technology from local computers to the Internet, which “would not contain an inventive concept,” but “overc[a]me[] existing problems with other Internet filtering systems”—i.e., it solved the problem of “inflexible one-size-fits-all” remote filtering schemes (caused by simply moving filtering technology to the Internet) by enabling individualized filtering at the ISP server. Id at 1350–51. In other words, the patent in Bascom did not purport to improve the Internet itself by introducing prior art filtering technology to the Internet. Rather, the Bascom patent fixed a problem presented by combining the two. The key fact in Bascom was the presence of a structural change in “installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end-users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user. This design gives the filtering tool both the benefits of a filter on a local computer and the benefits of a filter on the ISP server.” Bascom, 827 F.3d at 1350. The instant claims have no analogous structural benefit. In particular, the specification does not indicate that invention recites any improvement to conventional identifying and organizing feedback, nor do the claims solve any problem associated with situating such feedback across the Internet, nor is there any structural benefit which would make the instant claims analogous. The Examiner also notes that this was considered an improvement to computing technology at the time of Bascom’s relatively early filing date/date of invention The present claims different: the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools (i.e. faster and more efficient). In the case of the instant invention, the Examiner asserts that the specification lacks any disclosure of evidence to demonstrate that the invention is seeking to improve upon the existing technology or, more specifically, that the claimed invention is directed towards addressing and improving upon an issue that arose from the technology, but merely demonstrating that the claimed invention is directed towards the abstract idea and merely applying or utilizing generic computing devices performing their generic functions to carry out the well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the technical field of data management due to the benefits that computing devices provided, i.e. faster, more efficient, and etc. The courts further stated "The Supreme Court has not established a definitive rule to determine what constitutes an "abstract idea" sufficient to satisfy the first step of the Mayo/Alice inquiry. See id. at 2357. Rather, both this court and the Supreme Court have found it sufficient to compare claims at issue to those claims already found to be directed to an abstract idea in previous cases. "[The Court] need not labor to delimit the precise contours of the 'abstract ideas' category in this case. It is enough to recognize that there is no meaningful distinction between the concept of risk hedging in Bilski and the concept of intermediated settlement at issue here." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357; see also OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362. For instance, fundamental economic and conventional business practices are often found to be abstract ideas, even if performed on a computer. See, e.g., OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63."The claims, considered individually or as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea(s) as the claimed structures and components are all only used generically to apply the abstract idea(s). At that level of generality, the claims do no more than describe a desired function or outcome, without providing any limiting detail that confines the claim to a particular solution to an identified problem. The purely functional nature of the claim confirms that it is directed to an abstract idea, not to a concrete embodiment of that idea. As such, the claims are not analogous to the Bascom decision and the rejection not overcome.
Applicants further argue that the claims are similar to the recent Core Wireless decision; however the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The improvement in Core Wireless was directed towards providing an application summary that is reached directly from a menu wherein the device applications exist in an unlaunched state. This provided an improvement to the navigation of mobile electronic devices which have small screens by allowing a user to see the most relevant data or functions without actually opening a particular application up. The speed of a user's navigation on the mobile device through various views and windows can be improved because it saves the user from navigating to the required application, launching the application (thus requiring additional processor consumption and reduce performance), and then navigating within that application to enable the data of interest to be seen or a function of interest to be activated. The claims contain precise language delimiting the type of data to be displayed and how to display it, thus improving upon conventional user interfaces to increase the efficiency of using mobile devices (by not launching separate, standalone applications which consume/reduce processor performance) by “Displaying selected data or functions of interest in the summary window allows the user to see the most relevant data or functions “without actually opening the application up.” Id. at 3:53–55. The speed of a user’s navigation through various views and windows can be improved because it “saves the user from navigating to the required application, opening it up, and then navigating within that application to enable the data of interest to be seen or a function of interest to be activated.” Id. at 2:35-39. Rather than paging through multiple screens of options, “only three steps may be needed from start up to reaching the required data/functionality.” Id. at 3:2–3. This language clearly indicates that the claims are directed to an improvement in the functioning of computers, particularly those with small screens.” The claims in Core Wireless also allowed the user to select the summary and launch the particular application. The Examiner notes that this was considered an improvement to computing technology at the time of Core Wireless' relatively early filing date/date of invention. The instant application relates to organizing and analyzing feedback, and therefore does not realize any improvement to the way a computer interacts with or displays information from unlaunched applications. As such, the claims are not analogous to the Core Wireless decision and the rejection not overcome.
The Examiner also notes these arguments appear to be whether or not the use of computer or computing components for increased speed and efficiency results in an inventive concept; however the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Nor, in addressing the second step of Alice, does claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer provide a sufficient inventive concept. See Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[T]he fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.”); CLS Bank, Int’l v. Alice Corp., 717 F.3d 1269, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (en banc) aff’d, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) (“[S]imply appending generic computer functionality to lend speed or efficiency to the performance of an otherwise abstract concept does not meaningfully limit claim scope for purposes of patent eligibility.” (citations omitted)).
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. As such the arguments are not persuasive and the rejection not withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. As such the arguments are not persuasive and the rejection not withdrawn.
Applicant argues that the cited references do not disclose or render obvious the claims, specifically “The presently claimed combination of features recite automatically partitioning individual historical feedback items into a first partition based on preceding a future reputation event, such as a change in scoring or volume, and a second partition for items not preceding such events. Further, the presently claimed combination of features recite determining candidate text- based patterns and designating them as predictive signals only if disproportionately present via frequency comparison across partitions, with real-time alerting on subsequent feedback to address prior to the event;” however the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Here, as previously cited and noted in the interview, Short is able to “Bias Vector 144 provides an indication or measure of how a specific review outlet deviates away from the global "norm". One should further appreciate that the bias metrics composing bias vector 144 can be based on multiple review objects. For example, PC Gamer.RTM. magazine, a specific review outlet, could have thousands of reviews for FPS games. Thus, a corresponding bias vector 144 associated with PC Gamer magazine could include a statistical measure indicating if PC Gamer as an review outlet has a bias by providing favorable reviews or unfavorable reviews for FPS games or other game properties (Short ¶27)” which clearly shows the ability to partition historical data based upon some sort of bias detected such as a change in the arrival rate of the reviews (i.e. a reputation event). Clearly one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret this ability to separate or partition the historical feedback based upon either bias detection such as a particular platform being biased (a reputation event) or the change in arrival rate of reviews (also a reputation event) as the ability to partition the historical feedback into a first and second partition based upon some sort of reputation event. To put another way, Short is able to keep a composite score but also account for how a review platform deviates from that composite score, or how a sudden change in arrival rate of review (attempting to skew the review i.e. bias) are accounted for and compared to the composite score. The Examiner again notes that a “reputation event” is very broad, such that any review/rating/etc. that contributes to the overall rating or review score will read upon the limitation. As such, this argument is not persuasive, and the rejection not overcome.
In response to arguments in reference to any depending claims that have not been individually addressed, all rejections made towards these dependent claims are maintained due to a lack of reply by the Applicants in regards to distinctly and specifically pointing out the supposed errors in the Examiner's prior office action (37 CFR 1.111). The Examiner asserts that the Applicants only argue that the dependent claims should be allowable because the independent claims are unobvious and patentable over the prior art.
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 2-5, 7, 10, 12-15, 17, 20, and 22-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims are directed to a process (an act, or series of acts or steps), a machine (a concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices), and a manufacture (an article produced from raw or prepared materials by giving these materials new forms, qualities, properties, or combinations, whether by hand labor or by machinery). Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (Step 1). However, the claim(s) recite(s) determine whether a candidate pattern in the set of candidate patterns is disproportionately associated with the first partition of feedback items relative to the baseline partition of feedback items based upon received feedback which is an abstract idea of organizing human activities (collecting and analyzing product reviews as a marketing activity) as well as a mental process (reading the product reviews for patterns and making a evaluation or judgement upon review content).
The limitations of “receive a plurality of historical feedback items; automatically partition a first feedback item in the plurality of historical feedback items into a first partition of feedback items based at least in part on the first feedback item having preceded an occurrence of a type of reputation event, the type of reputation event comprising a change in at least one of reputation scoring or review volume; automatically partition a second feedback item in the plurality of historical feedback items into a second partition of feedback items based at least in part on the second feedback item having not preceded occurrences of the type of reputation event; determine a candidate pattern present in the first partition of feedback items, the candidate pattern comprising a set of terms of categories present in feedback items in the first partition; responsive to determining that the candidate pattern in the set of candidate patterns is disproportionately present in the first partition of feedback items relative to the second partition of feedback items, designate the candidate pattern as a signal that is indicative of a future occurrence of the type of reputation event associated with the first partition of feedback items relative to the baseline partition of feedback items; responsive to identifying the signal in a subsequently received feedback item, facilitate addressing of the identified signal prior to occurrence of an instance of the type of reputation event at least in part by providing an alert,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers organizing human activities--fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) and/or a mental process—concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) but for the recitation of generic computer components (Step 2A Prong 1). That is, other than reciting “one or more processors configured to” (or “A computer program product embodied in a non-transitory computer readable storage medium and comprising computer instructions for:” in claim 22) nothing in the claim element precludes the step from the methods of organizing human interactions grouping or practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by a computer system” language, “receive,” “partition,” ”determine” “responsive to determining” and “responsive to identifying...” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually organizing feedback or product reviews by reading and analyzing said feedback or reviews and provide an alert which is a marketing/business activity as well as judgement or opinion regarding the feedback in order to bucket and determine if a reputation event has occurred. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a certain method of organizing human activities, while some can be performed in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” and/or “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (Step 2A Prong Two). Next, the claim only recites one additional element – using one or more processors (or computer program product of claim 20) to perform the steps. The processor (or computer program product of claim 20) steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Specifically the claims amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or invoking computers as tools by adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims recitation of the “a memory coupled to the processor and configured to provide the processor with instructions” and “in a real-time via an online reputation management platform” only generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea, even when considered as a whole.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A Prong 2), the additional element of using one or more processors (or computer program product of claim 22) to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible, even when considered as a whole. Again, as noted above, claim 12 is completely devoid of any structure whatsoever and thus only an abstract idea.
Claims 3, 7-11, 13, 17-21, and 23-25 recite the additional limitations that are still directed towards the abstract idea previously identified (further limiting the abstract idea itself) and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Again, as discussed with respect to claims 2, 12, and 22, the claims are simply limitations which are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer or with computing components. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Even when considered as a whole, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Claims 4-6 and 14-16 recite the additional limitations that include mathematical concepts which is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Again, as discussed with respect to claims 2, 12, and 22, the claims are simply limitations which are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer or with computing components. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Even when considered as a whole, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Claims 2-5, 7, 10, 12-15, 17, 20, and 22-25 are therefore not eligible subject matter, even when considered as a whole.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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, 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 2-5, 7, 10, 12-15, 17, 20, 22, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Short et al. (US PG Pub. 2012/0197816) further in view of Sun et al. (US PG Pub. 2011/0055104).
As per claims 2, 12, and 20, Short discloses a system, comprising: one or more processors configured to: a method, computer program product embodied in a non-transitory computer readable storage medium and comprising computer instructions for: (processor, non-transitory computer readable storage medium, software instructions, Short ¶11):
receive a plurality of historical feedback items (Review database 120 preferably stores review objects where each review object represents a review of one or more goods or services. In some embodiments, the review objects can be stored in a serialized fashion, possibly as an XML file, or even as an N-tuple of data. Review objects further comprise one or more attributes associated with the reviewer, review outlet (e.g., blog, web site, news story, forum posts, etc.), products that are reviewed, time, or other information relating the review. An especially preferred review attribute comprises a review score that represents a quantification of the review results with respect to a product property, Short ¶17; publicly accessible databases, ¶31; crawl product and review websites, ¶37);
automatically partition a first feedback item in the plurality of historical feedback items into a first partition of feedback items based at least in part on the first feedback item having preceded an occurrence of a type of reputation event, the type of reputation event comprising a change in at least one of reputation scoring or review volume (bias engine, bias vector, with a specific review object, for favorable or unfavorable reviews, arrival rate detector, Short ¶26-¶27; system to run analysis, ¶23) (Examiner interprets the system running the analysis as the ability to have the system run automatically), and
automatically partition a second feedback item in the plurality of historical feedback items into a second partition of feedback items based at least in part on the second feedback item having not preceded occurrences of the type of reputation event (Composite review score 142 represents a global measure of how all relevant reviews rated or otherwise reviewed specified products or product properties. As with review scores, composite review score 142 can be single valued or multi-valued. In some embodiments, composite review score 142 can be a simple average over all review objects. However, it is also contemplated that composite review score 142 can be derived by weighting the constituent review scores. For example, review scores could be down weighted up weighted based on how the review outlet has been rated as a reviewer by review readers, Short ¶24-¶25);
determine a candidate pattern present in the first partition of feedback items, the candidate pattern comprising a set of terms of categories present in feedback items in the first partition (for favorable or unfavorable reviews, Short ¶26-¶27; Bias engine 140 aggregates review scores derived from relevant review objects associated with one or more products having a common product property. For example, client 110 might query the system to run an analysis with respect to First Person Shooter (FPS) video games. Bias engine 140 would aggregate review objects associated with video game product objects that have a product property of "Genre:FPS". Bias engine 140 aggregates the review scores to form composite review score 142, ¶23; product properties, ¶36; a review outlet might be considered more favorable because the reviewer regularly gives positive reviews for three or four features (e.g., game play, publisher, game design, etc.) of a game while the same review outlet might give negative reviews for other features (e.g., art work, use of color, dialog, etc.), ¶39);
responsive to identifying the signal in a subsequently received feedback item, facilitate addressing of the identified signal prior to occurrence of an instance of the type of reputation event at least in part by providing an alert in real-time via an online reputation management platform (Recommendations are considered to comprise quantitative analyses relating to how review outlets or products should or should not be associated with each other. Recommendations can include a listing, possibly ranked, of review outlets that are most favorable to a product, Short ¶38; One should appreciate that the product object information and review object information can vary with time. As new information becomes available, possibly by submission of new objects to the databases or through crawling product or review web sites in real-time, the composite review scores or product properties could also change with time. Therefore, step 263 can optionally include presenting the bias vector as a function of time via an output device. In such embodiments, a client can observe how a review outlet or even a specific reviewer shifts bias. Further, such information can be used to track trends to identify or predict when a review outlet might likely have favorable or unfavorable bias toward product properties, ¶37) (Examiner interprets the recommendation triggered by the bias vector and rules thereof as the alert to facilitate addressing the identified signal prior to the occurrence of an instance); and
a memory coupled to the one or more processors and configured to provide the one or more processors with instructions (processor, non-transitory computer readable storage medium, software instructions, Short ¶11).
While Short discloses as shown above, Short does not expressly disclose determine whether the candidate pattern is disproportionately present in the first partition of feedback items relative to the second partition of feedback items.
However, Sun teaches responsive to determining that the candidate pattern in the set of candidate patterns is disproportionately present in the first partition of feedback items relative to the second partition of feedback items, designate the candidate pattern as a signal that is indicative of a future occurrence of the type of reputation event associated with the first partition of feedback items relative to the baseline partition of feedback items (an arrival rate detector 16, a model change detector 18, a histogram detector 20 and a mean change detector 22, each of which receives raw rating data 24. The outputs of each of the detectors 16, 18, 20 and 22 are provided to a suspicious interval detection unit 26, and the outputs of the histogram detector 20 and the mean change detector 22 are also provided to a suspicious rating detection unit 28. The outputs of the suspicious interval detection unit 26 and the suspicious rating detection unit 28 are provided to the trust manager system 14, and the output of the suspicious rating detection unit 28 is also provided to a rating filter 30. The raw rating data 24 is filtered by the rating filter 30 and is processed by a rating aggregation unit 32 prior to being output by the rating aggregator system 12. Both the mean change detector 22 and the rating aggregation unit 32 receive input from the trust manager system 14, Sun ¶27; in order to boost or reduce the mean value of ratings, ¶28).
Both the Short and Sun references are analogous in that both are directed towards/concerned with detecting review or rating bias. At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use Sun’s method of detecting unfair manipulations of reputation systems in Short’s system to improve the system and method with reasonable expectation that this would result in a review management system that is able to detect suspicious activity.
There is a need, for an improved system and method for detecting unfair and malicious ratings in on-line ratings systems. This problem is particularly challenging when the number of honest ratings is relatively small and unfair ratings may contribute to a significant portion of the overall ratings. In addition, the lack of unfair rating data from real human users is another obstacle toward realistic evaluation of defense mechanisms (Sun ¶11).
As per claims 3 and 13, Short and Sun disclose as shown above with respect to claims 2 and 12. Sun further teaches wherein the type of reputation event comprises one of a rise or a drop in reputation score, and wherein the first feedback item is partitioned into the first partition based at least in part on a determination of a difference between a reputation score for a previous period prior to the first feedback item, and a reputation score for a subsequent period subsequent to the first feedback item (in order to boost or reduce the mean value of ratings, per unit time, Sun ¶28).
As per claims 4 and 14, Short and Sun disclose as shown above with respect to claims 2 and 12. Sun further teaches wherein the type of reputation event comprises one of a rise or a drop in review volume, and wherein the first feedback item is partitioned into the first partition based at least in part on a determination of a difference between a review volume for a previous period prior to the first feedback item, and a review volume for a subsequent period subsequent to the first feedback item (in order to boost or reduce the mean value of ratings, per unit time, Sun ¶28).
As per claims 5 and 15, Short and Sun disclose as shown above with respect to claims 2 and 12. Sun further teaches wherein determining whether the candidate pattern is disproportionately present in the first partition of feedback items relative to the second partition of feedback items comprises comparing a frequency of the candidate pattern in the first partition against a frequency of the candidate pattern in the second partition (an arrival rate detector 16, a model change detector 18, a histogram detector 20 and a mean change detector 22, each of which receives raw rating data 24. The outputs of each of the detectors 16, 18, 20 and 22 are provided to a suspicious interval detection unit 26, and the outputs of the histogram detector 20 and the mean change detector 22 are also provided to a suspicious rating detection unit 28. The outputs of the suspicious interval detection unit 26 and the suspicious rating detection unit 28 are provided to the trust manager system 14, and the output of the suspicious rating detection unit 28 is also provided to a rating filter 30. The raw rating data 24 is filtered by the rating filter 30 and is processed by a rating aggregation unit 32 prior to being output by the rating aggregator system 12. Both the mean change detector 22 and the rating aggregation unit 32 receive input from the trust manager system 14, Sun ¶27).
As per claims 7 and 17, Short and Sun disclose as shown above with respect to claims 6 and 16. Short further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to predict an impact that appearance of the signal has on reputation scoring based on an average change in reputation scoring observed in the subsequent to historical feedback items including the signal (Step 260, having the bias vector in hand, includes the bias engine configuring an output device (e.g., computer, printer, mobile phone, integrated development environment, etc.) to present a recommendation with respect to associating a product object with a review outlet based on the bias vector. The recommendation aids a client on how to position a product with respect to one or more review outlets. Alternatively, a product developer can learn which product properties should be incorporated in the product to generate a favorable review from a review outlet. Recommendations can include associating a product with a review outlet, avoiding such an association, indicating which outlets are most or least favorable to a product, or other suggestions, Short ¶36; An example multi-valued composite review score 142 could include an N-tuple, vector, or matrix including multiple members, each member reflecting an aggregated review scores for each type of product property. Thus, composite review score 142 can provide an indication how each aspect of product properties were received by numerous review outlets over all. Further, each member can include statistical information about the aggregated information possibly including number of data points, an average, a mode, a standard deviation, a Chi-square fit value to a trend, or other statistical information. One should appreciate that composite review score 142 represents a global view of products or specific product properties, ¶25).
As per claims 10 and 20, Short and Sun disclose as shown above with respect to claims 2 and 19. Short further discloses wherein the set of terms are not associated with previously defined categories, and wherein the one or more processors are further configured to determine one or more new categories based at least in part on the set of terms by identifying the set of terms as disproportionately associated with the first partition (crawl product and review websites, in real time, Short ¶37; The universal characteristics of a target object can be determined through different approaches. Approaches can include converting proprietary data formats to the universal format, translating information to the universal namespace through one or more look-up tables, establishing weighted correlations among keywords or other data points and the universal namespace or other techniques. As an example, many media outlets or review outlets can be analyzed with respect to keywords or concepts. The concepts can be mapped on a cluster plot to determine potential groupings. Should groupings overlap or cluster unexpectedly, then the concepts might be related. Such clustering can be realized by grouping objects based on intermediary commonly shared characteristics. When a correlation is established between products and media outlets (or review outlets), an analysis engine can determine a relevance distance between the two objects. The relevance distance can be considered a vector of weighted parameters were each element of the vector indicates how strongly or weakly correlated to the objects are. One should appreciate that existence of an element in the vector (or non-existence of the element) is considered useful information. Each element in the relevance distance can correspond to a single universal characteristics or even a combination of multiple characteristics where the element is reflective of function of two or more characteristics, ¶42-¶43) (Examiner interprets the ability to crawl product websites and review websites for the ability to define new products, categories, reviews etc.).
As per claim 24, Short and Sun disclose as shown above with respect to claim 2. Short further discloses wherein designating the candidate pattern as the signal comprises using an industry-wide baseline model generated from feedback items across multiple entities to normalize a predictive impact of the candidate pattern on the future occurrence of the type of reputation event (crawl product and review websites, in real time, Short ¶37; The universal characteristics of a target object can be determined through different approaches. Approaches can include converting proprietary data formats to the universal format, translating information to the universal namespace through one or more look-up tables, establishing weighted correlations among keywords or other data points and the universal namespace or other techniques. As an example, many media outlets or review outlets can be analyzed with respect to keywords or concepts. The concepts can be mapped on a cluster plot to determine potential groupings. Should groupings overlap or cluster unexpectedly, then the concepts might be related. Such clustering can be realized by grouping objects based on intermediary commonly shared characteristics. When a correlation is established between products and media outlets (or review outlets), an analysis engine can determine a relevance distance between the two objects. The relevance distance can be considered a vector of weighted parameters were each element of the vector indicates how strongly or weakly correlated to the objects are. One should appreciate that existence of an element in the vector (or non-existence of the element) is considered useful information. Each element in the relevance distance can correspond to a single universal characteristics or even a combination of multiple characteristics where the element is reflective of function of two or more characteristics, ¶42-¶43).
Claims 23 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Short et al. (US PG Pub. 2012/0197816) and Sun et al. (US PG Pub. 2011/0055104) further in view of Keren et al. (US PG Pub. 2021/0248624).
As per claim 23, Short and Sun disclose as shown above with respect to claim 2. The combination of Short and Sun do not expressly disclose wherein the candidate pattern further comprises a combination of a temporal characteristic and a geographic characteristic across multiple feedback items in the first partition, and wherein determining that the candidate pattern is disproportionately present comprises evaluating a frequency of the combination in the first partition relative to the second partition.
However, Keren teaches wherein the candidate pattern further comprises a combination of a temporal characteristic and a geographic characteristic across multiple feedback items in the first partition, and wherein determining that the candidate pattern is disproportionately present comprises evaluating a frequency of the combination in the first partition relative to the second partition (geographical zones, Keren ¶373; location/geo-location of sellers, locations of posts, ¶460).
The Shor, Sun, and Keren references are analogous in that both are directed towards/concerned with protecting online retailers or brands. At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use Keren’s brand protection by identifying individual incidents in Short’s system to improve the system and method with reasonable expectation that this would result in a review management system that is able to detect suspicious activity.
There is a need as the risks that organizations face may include, for example: (a) Websites or webpages that abuse the brand and/or infringe the trademark; (b) The usage of a company's brand to attract users to other websites, sometimes to competitors websites, and by that “stealing” user traffic from the legitimate brand websites; (c) Websites that sell counterfeit products or fake products, and websites used for “grey” market sales (unauthorized sales of products); (d) Websites that abuse the brand and sell competing products or services; (e) Trademark infringement and brand abuse through phonetic imitation and typos (typographical errors) of domain names (many times used for “parked domains” websites that contain Pay Per Click (PPC) advertisements or other types of online advertisements and are intended to exploit the brand by attracting user traffic); (f) Fraudulent websites used for counterfeiting and corporate impersonation (including but not limited to Phishing and Pharming websites, spoofed blogs, etc.); (g) Slander and distribution of offensive information or damaging information or dis-information or negative information over the Internet. These brand protection problems that organizations face are accompanied by domain name portfolio management problems and other digital brand management problems (Keren ¶79).
As per claim 25, Short and Sun disclose as shown above with respect to claim 2. The combination of Short and Sun do not expressly disclose wherein facilitating addressing of the identified signal comprises automatically generating a real-time ticket to escalate the subsequently received feedback item for prioritized response based on the signal.
However, Keren teaches wherein facilitating addressing of the identified signal comprises automatically generating a real-time ticket to escalate the subsequently received feedback item for prioritized response based on the signal (mark or flag actions, Keren ¶233) (Examiner interprets the marking or flagging for further review as the equivalent to creating a ticket to escalate received reviews/platforms/items).
The Shor, Sun, and Keren references are analogous in that both are directed towards/concerned with protecting online retailers or brands. At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use Keren’s brand protection by identifying individual incidents in Short’s system to improve the system and method with reasonable expectation that this would result in a review management system that is able to detect suspicious activity.
There is a need as the risks that organizations face may include, for example: (a) Websites or webpages that abuse the brand and/or infringe the trademark; (b) The usage of a company's brand to attract users to other websites, sometimes to competitors websites, and by that “stealing” user traffic from the legitimate brand websites; (c) Websites that sell counterfeit products or fake products, and websites used for “grey” market sales (unauthorized sales of products); (d) Websites that abuse the brand and sell competing products or services; (e) Trademark infringement and brand abuse through phonetic imitation and typos (typographical errors) of domain names (many times used for “parked domains” websites that contain Pay Per Click (PPC) advertisements or other types of online advertisements and are intended to exploit the brand by attracting user traffic); (f) Fraudulent websites used for counterfeiting and corporate impersonation (including but not limited to Phishing and Pharming websites, spoofed blogs, etc.); (g) Slander and distribution of offensive information or damaging information or dis-information or negative information over the Internet. These brand protection problems that organizations face are accompanied by domain name portfolio management problems and other digital brand management problems (Keren ¶79).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to ANDREW B WHITAKER whose telephone number is (571)270-7563. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 8am-5pm, EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Lynda Jasmin can be reached on (571) 272-6782. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-
automated- interview-request-air-form
/ANDREW B WHITAKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629