DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 7, 9, 11, 17, and 19-20 have been amended.
Claims 2-6, 8, 12-16, and 18 have been cancelled.
Claims 1, 7, 9-11, 17, and 19-20 are currently pending and have been considered by the examiner.
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 .
Response to Arguments
101 Rejection:
Applicant’s arguments have been considered and have been deemed unpersuasive based upon the rationale provided in the following 101 rejection.
Prior Art Rejection:
Applicant’s arguments have been considered and are moot in view of new grounds for rejection.
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, 7, 9-11, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In the instant case, claim 1-10 are directed towards a method, claims 11-19 are directed to a system/apparatus, and claim 20 is directed towards a non-transitory computer readable medium. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
Claim 1 recites the following:
A method for providing certified reviews on a third-party review service, the method comprising:
obtaining, via one or more processors, one or more digital tokens associated with a transaction between a buyer and a seller to purchase an item from the seller; wherein the one or more digital tokens comprise:
a first right to review token authorizing the buyer to review the seller, the first right to review token comprising a signature that is unique to the seller, anda second right to review token authorizing the buyer to review the item, the second right to review token including a signature that is unique to the item;
authenticating, by the one or more processors, the buyer to provide a review of at least one of the seller or the item based on the one or more digital tokens;
receiving, by the one or more processors, a review generated by the buyer;
based on the authenticating, publishing, by the one or more processors, the review so that the review is publicly accessible via the third-party review service, wherein publishing the review comprises generating a user interface displaying the review; and
providing, by the one or more processors, a public indication that the published review is certified wherein publishing the review comprises
generating a user interface displaying the review; and providing, by the one or more processors, a public indication that the published review is certified, wherein providing the public indication comprises:
storing, by the one or more processors, the one or more digital tokens on a blockchain such that the one or more digital tokens are publicly available; and
generating, by the one or more processors, a graphical image within the user interface, the graphical image indicating the published review is certified..
Regarding Step 2A Prong One, the claims recite the abstract idea of performing commercial and/or legal interactions. Specifically, the claims recite the limitations underlined above which recite the process of collecting and posting reviews associated with transactions between a buyer and seller which constitutes marketing or sales activities or behaviors which is grouped within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP § 2106.04) because the claims involve the process of mitigating risk in an economic transaction. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See pages 7, 10, Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., US Supreme Court, No. 13-298, June 19, 2014; 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 53-54 (January 7, 2019)).
Regarding Step 2A Prong Two, the recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP § 2106.04(d)), the additional element(s) of the claim(s) such as a “processor” and the other non-underlined elements of the above claim merely use(s) a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Specifically, the “processor” and the other non-underlined elements of the above claim perform(s) the steps or functions underlined above. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP § 2106.05), the additional element(s) of a “processor” and the other non-underlined elements of the above claim amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, the “processor” and the other non-underlined elements of the above claim perform(s) the steps or functions underlined above. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite risk mitigation. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 further describe the recited abstract idea. The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Specifically:
Claims 2 and 12 merely further describe the limitations directed towards the recited abstract idea.
Claims 3-4, 7, 13-14, and 17 recite additional limitations which are also directed towards the abstract idea of performing commercial or legal interactions.
Claims 5-6, 8-10, 15-16, and 18-19 merely further describe the data being used to perform the recited abstract idea.
Therefore, as the dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor provide significantly more than the abstract idea, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
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, 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.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 9-11, 17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’brien (WO 2018222797 A1) in view of Sundararaman et al. (US 20230162292 A1) in further view of Lavasanijou et al. (US 20230230144 A1)
Regarding Claims 1, 11, and 20, O’brien discloses:
A method for providing certified reviews on a third-party review service (See O’brien: Para. [0021] – “In some embodiments, the review web service system 140 may provide an online review user interface based on the review records in the distributed database for potential customers to browse through product and service reviews”), the method comprising:
obtaining, via one or more processors, one or more digital tokens associated with a transaction between a buyer and a seller to purchase an item from the seller (See O’brien: Para. [0026] – “In some embodiments, each transaction record may comprise a public key of the new owner and a digital signature of the seller generated using the sellers' private key. In some embodiments, the transactions associated with the user comprise transactions containing the public key or a digital signature generated using the private key of the user. In some embodiments, the transaction record may comprise a message containing transaction details such as a product identifier, a transaction date, a transaction price, a transaction type (e.g. in-store purchase, online purchase, free sample, etc.), etc.”);
authenticating, by the one or more processors, the buyer (See O’brien: Para. [0024] – “In step 201, the system receives user credential. In some embodiments, the user credential may comprise a public and private key pair associated with a user. In some embodiments, the public and private keys are associated based on public-key cryptography. In some embodiments, the user credential may be entered into and/or stored at a client software of a distributed database on a user device”) to provide a review of at least one of the seller or the item based on the one or more digital tokens (See O’brien: Para. [0029] – “In some embodiments, the distributed database client software may comprise a customer review user interface that allows customers to enter reviews. In some embodiments, the products may be displayed with product descriptions (e.g. name, image, specifications) and/or transaction details (e.g. seller, purchase date, price, etc.). The customer review user interface may comprise text boxes and/or rating inputs (e.g. star rating, score, etc.) for the customer to provide reviews to a product or a service. In some embodiments, the system would not allow users to leave reviews for products that the user never owned and/or no longer owns.”);
receiving, by the one or more processors, a review generated by the buyer (See O’brien: Para. [0030] – “In step 205, the system receives a customer review. In some embodiments, the review may comprise text input, a score, or multiple scores associated with different characteristics of the product (e.g. quality, price, ease of use, taste, durability, etc.).”);
based on the authenticating, publishing, by the one or more processors, the review so that the review is publicly accessible via the third-party review service (See O’brien: Para. [0031] – “In step 206, the system generates a product review record. In some embodiments, the product review record may comprise one or more of a product identifier, a reviewer identifier, and the submitted review. In some embodiments, a product review record comprises one or more of a signature generated with the private key of the user and a reference to a transaction associated with the product in the distributed transaction ledger as proof of ownership of the product being reviewed. In some embodiments, the product review record may further comprise other transaction details such as seller, purchase date, purchase condition (e.g. refurbished, second hand, etc.), product version, product firmware version, etc. In some embodiments, the review record may be encrypted or partially encrypted”);
wherein publishing the review comprises generating a user interface displaying the review (See O’brien: Para. [0017] – “causes the control circuit 112 to provide a customer review interface via the user interface device 116 based on information stored in a distributed transaction ledger comprising digital transaction records. In some embodiments, the control circuit 112 may further be configured to update a distributed database based on user submitted reviews.”) and
providing, by the one or more processors, a public indication that the published review is certified (See O’brien: Para. [0045] – “The review record 330 comprises a message signed by the buyer's private key. The message of a review record 330 may comprise a reference to a transaction record showing the user's ownership of the product and the content of the review. In some embodiments, the review record 330 may further comprise a product or seller identifier identifying the product or seller being reviewed. In some embodiments, the message of the review record 330 may comprise other transaction details such as a seller identifier, a transaction date, a transaction price, a transaction type (e.g. in-store purchase, online purchase, free sample, etc.).”).
storing, by the one or more processors, the one or more digital tokens on a blockchain such that the one or more digital tokens are publicly available (See O’brien: Para. [0037] – “In step 220, the system sends the seller review record to a distributed database as an update to the distributed database. In some embodiments, the distributed database comprises the distributed transaction ledger storing the digital product purchase records or a separately maintained distributed database. In some embodiments, the product and sellers reviews may be stored in the same or different distributed databases. In some embodiments, one or more nodes of the distributed database may be configured to verify that the user is a legitimate customer prior to updating the distributed database with the seller review record submitted by the user.”); and
However, O’brien fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein the one or more digital tokens comprise: a first right to review token authorizing the buyer to review the seller, the first right to review token comprising a signature that is unique to the seller, and a second right to review token authorizing the buyer to review the item, the second right to review token including a signature that is unique to the item;
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Sundararaman discloses the use of identifiers/signatures for use in authenticating authorized reviewers and data elements (See Sundararaman: Para. [0124] – “The new entry 616 can include other information, such as a user identifier (e.g., an identifier associated with the “user1” user), a company/entity identifier, or a link 622 (or identifier or other reference) to an image of the receipt 602. The link 622 can be used for secure access to receipt images. For example, an authorized user, such as a manual reviewer or a manger of a user who submitted the receipt, can be provided access to a receipt image, using the link 622 or another image identifier or reference.”, See Sundararaman: Para. [0131] – “As shown for the entries 616, 638, and 646, a compound key can be formed without using user or entity/company identifiers, which can enable detection of duplicate receipts across users and/or across companies. In some implementations, a compound key, or a primary key that includes a compound key, can include a user identifier, such as a user identifier 648 in an entry 650. As another example and as shown in an entry 652, a record in the database 614 can include a company identifier 654 (e.g., as well as a user identifier 656). In some implementations, if receipts that have a same location, a same time, a same amount, but from different users, a user identifier or another process can be used to validate the receipts.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the digital tokens disclosed by O’brien to include unique identifiers/signatures indicating authorized status with regard to their associated level of right to review as well as to the item itself, yielding the predictable result of an increase in the security strength of the invention by ensuring that any anomalies and fraud are detected.
However, the combination of O’brien, and Sundararaman fails to explicitly disclose:
providing, by the one or more processors, a public indication that the published review is certified,
generating, by the one or more processors, a graphical image within the user interface, the graphical image indicating the published review is certified.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Lavasanijou discloses a method of visusally providing, via an indication, that a review is certified authentic (See Lavasanijou: Para. [0062] – “In some examples, the one or more first graphical objects 230 may comprise an indication 242 of a review score associated the subset of reviews 224 (e.g., the review score may be determined based upon the plurality of review scores, such as by averaging the plurality of review scores), an indication 244 of the first item rating (e.g., 3.5 out of 5 represented by 3 filled stars, one half-filled star and one empty star) and/or an indication 246 of a quantity of reviews of the subset of reviews 224 (e.g., 36 reviews, wherein the indication 246 may be indicative of the subset of reviews 224 being certified as authentic and/or high quality by the review system).”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the displayed item entry disclosed by the combination of O’brien and Sundararaman to additionally display the authentic certification indication disclosed by Lavasanijou yielding the predictable result of an increase in the security of the invention by enabling the system to certify that the reviews are authentic.
Regarding Claims 7 and 17, O’brien discloses:
wherein the authenticating comprises:determining, by the one or more processors, the signature included in the first right to review token corresponds to a first signature included in a plurality of unique signatures ; and determining, by the one or more processors, the buyer is authenticated to submit a review of the seller based on the determining that the signature included in the first right to review token corresponds to the first signature included in the plurality of unique signatures (See O’brien: Para. [0026] – “In some embodiments, each transaction record may comprise a public key of the new owner and a digital signature of the seller generated using the sellers' private key. In some embodiments, the transactions associated with the user comprise transactions containing the public key or a digital signature generated using the private key of the user. In some embodiments, the transaction record may comprise a message containing transaction details such as a product identifier, a transaction date, a transaction price, a transaction type (e.g. in-store purchase, online purchase, free sample, etc.), etc. In some embodiments, the transaction record may also comprise other types of ownership changes such as returns, refunds, resells, exchanges, replacements, and the like. In some embodiments, the client software may be configured to allow a user to indicate that the item is lost, destroyed, or discarded and the transaction records may be updated to reflect that the item is now nonexistent or ownerless. In some embodiments, in step 202, the client software may look through all the transaction records in the distributed transaction ledger to identify the transactions associated with the user's credential (e.g. public key, signature, etc.) provided in step 201. In some embodiments, in step 202, the system may maintain a record of each transaction carried out through the client software and/or the user account without having to look through all the transaction records. In some embodiments, the client software may only index blocks of the distributed transaction ledger that have not been previously indexed to identify any new transactions associated with the user.”).
Regarding Claims 9 and 19, O’brien discloses:
wherein the one or more tokens further comprise a payment token that is indicative of the transaction between the buyer and the seller (See O’brien: Para. [0031] – “In step 206, the system generates a product review record. In some embodiments, the product review record may comprise one or more of a product identifier, a reviewer identifier, and the submitted review. In some embodiments, a product review record comprises one or more of a signature generated with the private key of the user and a reference to a transaction associated with the product in the distributed transaction ledger as proof of ownership of the product being reviewed. In some embodiments, the product review record may further comprise other transaction details such as seller, purchase date, purchase condition (e.g. refurbished, second hand, etc.), product version, product firmware version, etc. In some embodiments, the review record may be encrypted or partially encrypted.”).
Regarding Claim 10, O’brien discloses:
wherein the payment token indicates a price the buyer paid the seller for the item (See O’brien: Para. [0031] – “In step 206, the system generates a product review record. In some embodiments, the product review record may comprise one or more of a product identifier, a reviewer identifier, and the submitted review. In some embodiments, a product review record comprises one or more of a signature generated with the private key of the user and a reference to a transaction associated with the product in the distributed transaction ledger as proof of ownership of the product being reviewed. In some embodiments, the product review record may further comprise other transaction details such as seller, purchase date, purchase condition (e.g. refurbished, second hand, etc.), product version, product firmware version, etc. In some embodiments, the review record may be encrypted or partially encrypted.”).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS K PHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6748. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 1 pm-9 pm EST.
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, Neha Patel can be reached at 571-270-1492. 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.
/NICHOLAS K PHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3699
/NEHA PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3699