DETAILED ACTION
1. This is a Non-Final Office Action Correspondence in response to U.S. Application No. 18/540131 filed on December 14, 2023.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. §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.
5. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computer-implemented method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one independent claim, 1, specifically claim 1 recites “constructing a classifier using the labels of the users” in the context of this claim encompasses the user using a pen and paper to construct a set of labels for the users. These limitations could be reasonably and practically performed by the human mind, for instance based on a human can write a set of rules based upon labels of the users. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process, which can be done utilizing pen and paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The independent claim of 1 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome:
For example, "setting a respective label for a plurality of users, wherein the plurality of users is limited to users who have received both a message containing false information and a message containing a refutation of the false information” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
For example “and using the classifier to determine a label for an additional user” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “setting a respective label for a plurality of users, wherein the plurality of users is limited to users who have received both a message containing false information and a message containing a refutation of the false information”, “and using the classifier to determine a label for an additional user”.
For example, “setting a respective label for a plurality of users, wherein the plurality of users is limited to users who have received both a message containing false information and a message containing a refutation of the false information”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
For example, “and using the classifier to determine a label for an additional user” do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computer-implemented method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 2, specifically claim 2 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 2 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example “a first class representing users who did not send a copy of the message containing false information and did not send a copy of the message containing the refutation of the false message” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
For example “and a second class representing users who sent at least one of a copy of the message containing false information and a copy of the message containing the refutation of the false message” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “a first class representing users who did not send a copy of the message containing false information and did not send a copy of the message containing the refutation of the false message”, “and a second class representing users who sent at least one of a copy of the message containing false information and a copy of the message containing the refutation of the false message”.
For example, “a first class representing users who did not send a copy of the message containing false information and did not send a copy of the message containing the refutation of the false message”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
For example, “and a second class representing users who sent at least one of a copy of the message containing false information and a copy of the message containing the refutation of the false message”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computer-implemented method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 3, specifically claim 3 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 3 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example “a first class representing users who sent a copy of the message containing the false information after receiving the message containing the refutation of the false information” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “a first class representing users who sent a copy of the message containing the false information after receiving the message containing the refutation of the false information”.
For example, “a first class representing users who did not send a copy of the message containing false information and did not send a copy of the message containing the refutation of the false message”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computer-implemented method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 4, specifically claim 4 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 4 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example “a second class representing users who sent a copy of the message containing the false information before receiving the message containing the refutation of the false information and who did not send a copy of the message containing the refutation of the false information” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “a second class representing users who sent a copy of the message containing the false information before receiving the message containing the refutation of the false information and who did not send a copy of the message containing the refutation of the false information”.
For example, “a second class representing users who sent a copy of the message containing the false information before receiving the message containing the refutation of the false information and who did not send a copy of the message containing the refutation of the false information”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computer-implemented method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 5, specifically claim 5 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 5 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example “a third class representing users who sent a copy of the message containing the false information and then sent a copy of the message containing the refutation of the false information” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “a third class representing users who sent a copy of the message containing the false information and then sent a copy of the message containing the refutation of the false information”.
For example, “a third class representing users who sent a copy of the message containing the false information and then sent a copy of the message containing the refutation of the false information”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computer-implemented method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 6, specifically claim 6 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 6 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example “a fourth class representing users who sent a copy of the message containing the refutation of the false information but who did not send a copy of the message containing the false information” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “a fourth class representing users who sent a copy of the message containing the refutation of the false information but who did not send a copy of the message containing the false information”.
For example, “a fourth class representing users who sent a copy of the message containing the refutation of the false information but who did not send a copy of the message containing the false information”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computer-implemented method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 7, specifically claim 7 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 7 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example “wherein constructing a classifier further comprises constructing a two-class classifier in addition to the multi-class classifier and wherein using the classifier to determine a label for the additional user comprises using at least one of the two-class classifier and the multi-class classifier” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein constructing a classifier further comprises constructing a two-class classifier in addition to the multi-class classifier and wherein using the classifier to determine a label for the additional user comprises using at least one of the two-class classifier and the multi-class classifier”.
For example, “wherein constructing a classifier further comprises constructing a two-class classifier in addition to the multi-class classifier and wherein using the classifier to determine a label for the additional user comprises using at least one of the two-class classifier and the multi-class classifier”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computer-implemented method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 8, specifically claim 8 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 8 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example “a first class representing users who did not send a copy of the message containing false information and did not send a copy of the message containing the refutation of the false message” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
“a second class representing users who sent at least one of a copy of the message containing false information and a copy of the message containing the refutation of the false message” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “a first class representing users who did not send a copy of the message containing false information and did not send a copy of the message containing the refutation of the false message”, “a second class representing users who sent at least one of a copy of the message containing false information and a copy of the message containing the refutation of the false message”.
For example, “a first class representing users who did not send a copy of the message containing false information and did not send a copy of the message containing the refutation of the false message”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
For example, “a second class representing users who sent at least one of a copy of the message containing false information and a copy of the message containing the refutation of the false message”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computer-implemented method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 9, specifically claim 9 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 9 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example “using the two-class classifier to determine whether the additional user is in the first class of the two-class classifier or the second class of the two-class classifier” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
“and only when the user is in the second class of the two-class classier, using the multi-class classifier to determine which of the first, second, third and fourth class of the multi-class classifier the additional user is in and determining the label for the additional user based on which of the first, second, third and fourth class of the multi-class classifier the additional user is in” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “using the two-class classifier to determine whether the additional user is in the first class of the two-class classifier or the second class of the two-class classifier”, “and only when the user is in the second class of the two-class classier, using the multi-class classifier to determine which of the first, second, third and fourth class of the multi-class classifier the additional user is in and determining the label for the additional user based on which of the first, second, third and fourth class of the multi-class classifier the additional user is in”.
For example, “using the two-class classifier to determine whether the additional user is in the first class of the two-class classifier or the second class of the two-class classifier”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
For example, “and only when the user is in the second class of the two-class classier, using the multi-class classifier to determine which of the first, second, third and fourth class of the multi-class classifier the additional user is in and determining the label for the additional user based on which of the first, second, third and fourth class of the multi-class classifier the additional user is in”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computer-implemented method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 10, specifically claim 10 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 10 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example “determining a connection network for the additional user” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
“and applying the connection network to a graph embedding algorithm to obtain an embedding vector” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “determining a connection network for the additional user”, “and applying the connection network to a graph embedding algorithm to obtain an embedding vector”.
For example, “determining a connection network for the additional user”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
For example, “and applying the connection network to a graph embedding algorithm to obtain an embedding vector”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computer-implemented method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 11, specifically claim 11 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 11 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example, “wherein using the two-class classifier comprises applying the embedding vector to the two-class classifier” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein using the two-class classifier comprises applying the embedding vector to the two-class classifier”.
For example, “wherein using the two-class classifier comprises applying the embedding vector to the two-class classifier”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computer-implemented method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 12, specifically claim 12 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 12 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example, “determining a feature vector from a profile of the additional user and wherein using the multi-class classifier comprises applying the embedding vector and the feature vector to the multi-class classifier” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “determining a feature vector from a profile of the additional user and wherein using the multi-class classifier comprises applying the embedding vector and the feature vector to the multi-class classifier”.
For example, “determining a feature vector from a profile of the additional user and wherein using the multi-class classifier comprises applying the embedding vector and the feature vector to the multi-class classifier”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computer-implemented method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one independent claim, 13, specifically claim 13 recites, “the label being assigned to the user without determining how the user has reacted to past messages containing misinformation” in the context of this claim encompasses the user using a pen and paper to assign a label without needed user interaction. These limitations could be reasonably and practically performed by the human mind, for instance based on a human can write a set of rules based upon labels of the users. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process, which can be done utilizing pen and paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The independent claim of 13 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome:
For example, "retrieving social network connections of a user from a database” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
For example “using the social network connections to assign a label to the user, the label indicating how the user will react to messages containing misinformation and messages containing refutations of misinformation” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites "retrieving social network connections of a user from a database”, “using the social network connections to assign a label to the user, the label indicating how the user will react to messages containing misinformation and messages containing refutations of misinformation”.
For example, “setting a respective label for a plurality of users, wherein the plurality of users is limited to users who have received both a message containing false information and a message containing a refutation of the false information”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
For example, “and using the classifier to determine a label for an additional user” do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computer-implemented method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 14, specifically claim 14 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 14 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example “a first class representing users who did not send a copy of the message containing false information and did not send a copy of the message containing the refutation of the false message” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
For example “and a second class representing users who sent at least one of a copy of the message containing false information and a copy of the message containing the refutation of the false message” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “applying the social network connections to a graph embedding algorithm to produce a graph embedded vector”, “applying the graph embedded vector to at least one classifier”.
For example, “applying the social network connections to a graph embedding algorithm to produce a graph embedded vector”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
For example, “applying the graph embedded vector to at least one classifier”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computer-implemented method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 15, specifically claim 15 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 15 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example “applying the graph embedded vector to a two-class classifier to determine whether to assign a disengaged label to the user that indicates that the user is expected to not send copies of messages containing misinformation and is not expected to send copies of messages containing refutations of misinformation” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “applying the graph embedded vector to a two-class classifier to determine whether to assign a disengaged label to the user that indicates that the user is expected to not send copies of messages containing misinformation and is not expected to send copies of messages containing refutations of misinformation”.
For example, “applying the graph embedded vector to a two-class classifier to determine whether to assign a disengaged label to the user that indicates that the user is expected to not send copies of messages containing misinformation and is not expected to send copies of messages containing refutations of misinformation”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computer-implemented method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 16, specifically claim 16 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 16 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example “wherein applying the graph embedded vector to at least one classifier further comprises: when the user is not assigned the disengaged label, applying the graph embedded vector to a multi-class classifier to assign one of a plurality of labels to the user” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein applying the graph embedded vector to at least one classifier further comprises: when the user is not assigned the disengaged label, applying the graph embedded vector to a multi-class classifier to assign one of a plurality of labels to the user”.
For example, “wherein applying the graph embedded vector to at least one classifier further comprises: when the user is not assigned the disengaged label, applying the graph embedded vector to a multi-class classifier to assign one of a plurality of labels to the user”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computer-implemented method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 17, specifically claim 17 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 17 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example “a malicious label indicating that the user is expected to send a copy of a message containing misinformation after receiving a message containing a refutation of the misinformation” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
For example “a malicious label indicating that the user is expected to send a copy of a message containing misinformation after receiving a message containing a refutation of the misinformation” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
For example “a maybe-malicious label indicating that the user is expected to send a copy of a message containing misinformation before receiving a message containing a refutation of the misinformation and are further expected to not send a copy of the message containing the refutation” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
For example “a naïve label indicating that the user is expected to send a copy of a message containing misinformation before receiving a message containing a refutation of the misinformation and is further expected to send a copy of the message containing the refutation of the misinformation” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
For example “and an informed-sharer label that indicates that the user is expected to not send a copy of a message containing misinformation” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “a malicious label indicating that the user is expected to send a copy of a message containing misinformation after receiving a message containing a refutation of the misinformation”, “a maybe-malicious label indicating that the user is expected to send a copy of a message containing misinformation before receiving a message containing a refutation of the misinformation and are further expected to not send a copy of the message containing the refutation”, “a naïve label indicating that the user is expected to send a copy of a message containing misinformation before receiving a message containing a refutation of the misinformation and is further expected to send a copy of the message containing the refutation of the misinformation”, “and an informed-sharer label that indicates that the user is expected to not send a copy of a message containing misinformation”.
For example, “wherein applying the graph embedded vector to at least one classifier further comprises: when the user is not assigned the disengaged label, applying the graph embedded vector to a multi-class classifier to assign one of a plurality of labels to the user”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
For example, “a maybe-malicious label indicating that the user is expected to send a copy of a message containing misinformation before receiving a message containing a refutation of the misinformation and are further expected to not send a copy of the message containing the refutation”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
For example, “a naïve label indicating that the user is expected to send a copy of a message containing misinformation before receiving a message containing a refutation of the misinformation and is further expected to send a copy of the message containing the refutation of the misinformation”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
For example, “and an informed-sharer label that indicates that the user is expected to not send a copy of a message containing misinformation”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a system.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one independent claim, 18, specifically claim 18 recites, “a two-class classifier that places a user in one of two classes based upon social network connections of the user” in the context of this claim encompasses the user using a pen and paper to construct a set of labels for the users,
“a multi-class classifier that places the user in one of a plurality of classes based upon the social network connections of the user” in the context of this claim encompasses the user using a pen and paper to construct a set of labels for the users. These limitations could be reasonably and practically performed by the human mind, for instance based on a human can write a set of rules based upon labels of the users. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process, which can be done utilizing pen and paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The independent claim of 18 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome:
For example, "wherein the multi-class classifier is not used when the user is placed in a first class of the two classes by the two-class classifier and is used when the user is placed in a second class of the two classes by the two-class classifier” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein the multi-class classifier is not used when the user is placed in a first class of the two classes by the two-class classifier and is used when the user is placed in a second class of the two classes by the two-class classifier”.
For example, “wherein the multi-class classifier is not used when the user is placed in a first class of the two classes by the two-class classifier and is used when the user is placed in a second class of the two classes by the two-class classifier”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a system.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 19, specifically claim 19 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The independent claim of 19 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome:
For example, " wherein the two-class classifier and the multi-class classifier
place the user in a class without information about how the user has interacted with messages in the past.” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein the two-class classifier and the multi-class classifier place the user in a class without information about how the user has interacted with messages in the past.”.
For example, “wherein the two-class classifier and the multi-class classifier place the user in a class without information about how the user has interacted with messages in the past.”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a system.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 20, specifically claim 20 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The independent claim of 20 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome:
For example, "wherein the two-class classifier and the multi-class classifier
place the user in a class without information about how the user has interacted with messages in the past.” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “a graph embedding algorithm wherein the social network connections of the user are applied to the graph embedding algorithm to produce a graph embedded vector and the two-class classifier and the multi-class classifier classify the user based on the graph embedded vector”
For example, “a graph embedding algorithm wherein the social network connections of the user are applied to the graph embedding algorithm to produce a graph embedded vector and the two-class classifier and the multi-class classifier classify the user based on the graph embedded vector”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
Claim 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being a system that is non-statutory. Claim 18 contains limitations that are only software. The claim does not contain any hardware components. Since software is not one of the statutory classes the claims is rejected as being non-statutory. Claims 19-20 are dependent upon claim 18 and do not cure the deficiency and are thus rejected as well.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McQueary et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0316082 (herein as ‘McQueary’) and further in view of Curran et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0209702 (herein as ‘Curran’).
As to claim 1 McQueary teaches a method comprising:
setting a respective label for a plurality of users (Par. 0088-89 McQueary);
constructing a classifier using the labels of the users (Par. 0089 and 0094-98 McQueary);
and using the classifier to determine a label for an additional user (Par. 0089 and 0094-98 McQueary);
McQueary does not teach but Curran teaches wherein the plurality of users is limited to users who have received both a message containing false information and a message containing a refutation of the false information (Par. 0035, 0037-0039 and 0043-0044 Curran).
McQueary and Curran are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, social network. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, provides for learning user classes and assigning those classes to additional users of McQueary to include the expressly uses user behavior and social relationships of Curran, to allow for accessing content in order to track users interaction with a particular website (Par. 0001-0002 Curran).
As to claim 2 McQueary in combination with Curran teaches each and every limitation of claim 1.
In addition McQueary teaches wherein constructing the classifier comprises constructing a two- class classifier comprising:
a first class representing users who did not send a copy of the message containing false information and did not send a copy of the message containing the refutation of the false message; and a second class representing users who sent at least one of a copy of the message containing false information and a copy of the message containing the refutation of the false message (Par. 0088 McQueary).
As to claim 3 McQueary in combination with Curran teaches each and every limitation of claim 1.
In addition Curran teaches wherein constructing the classifier comprises constructing a multi- class classifier comprising:
a first class representing users who sent a copy of the message containing the false information after receiving the message containing the refutation of the false information (Par. 0035-0039 Curran).
As to claim 4 McQueary in combination with Curran teaches each and every limitation of claim 3.
In addition Curran teaches wherein the multi-class classifier further comprises:
a second class representing users who sent a copy of the message containing the false information before receiving the message containing the refutation of the false information and who did not send a copy of the message containing the refutation of the false information (Par. 0043-0044 Curran).
As to claim 5 McQueary in combination with Curran teaches each and every limitation of claim 4.
In addition Curran teaches wherein the multi-class classifier further comprises:
a third class representing users who sent a copy of the message containing the false information and then sent a copy of the message containing the refutation of the false information (Par. 0035-0039 Curran).
As to claim 6 McQueary in combination with Curran teaches each and every limitation of claim 5.
In addition Curran teaches wherein the multi-class classifier further comprises:
a fourth class representing users who sent a copy of the message containing the refutation of the false information but who did not send a copy of the message containing the false information (Par. 0037-0039 and Par. 0043-0044).
As to claim 7 McQueary in combination with Curran teaches each and every limitation of claim 6.
In addition Curran teaches wherein constructing a classifier further comprises constructing a two-class classifier in addition to the multi-class classifier and wherein using the classifier to determine a label for the additional user comprises using at least one of the two-class classifier and the multi-class classifier (Par. 0088-0089).
As to claim 8 McQueary in combination with Curran teaches each and every limitation of claim 2.
In addition Curran teaches wherein the two-class classifier comprises:
a first class representing users who did not send a copy of the message containing false information and did not send a copy of the message containing the refutation of the false message (Par. 0088 McQueary);
a second class representing users who sent at least one of a copy of the message containing false information and a copy of the message containing the refutation of the false message (Par. 0035- 0039 Curran).
As to claim 9 McQueary in combination with Curran teaches each and every limitation of claim 8.
In addition McQueary teaches wherein using at least one of the two-class classifier and the multi-class classifier comprises:
using the two-class classifier to determine whether the additional user is in the first class of the two-class classifier or the second class of the two-class classifier; and only when the user is in the second class of the two-class classier, using the multi-class classifier to determine which of the first, second, third and fourth class of the multi-class classifier the additional user is in and determining the label for the additional user based on which of the first, second, third and fourth class of the multi-class classifier the additional user is in (Par. 0089 McQueary).
Claim(s) 10-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McQueary et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0316082 (herein as ‘McQueary’) and further in view of Curran et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0209702 (herein as ‘Curran’) and Wu et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0379628 (herein as ‘Wu’).
As to claim 10 McQueary in combination with Curran teaches each and every limitation of claim 9.
McQueary in combination with Curran does not teach but Wu teaches comprising: determining a connection network for the additional user; and
applying the connection network to a graph embedding algorithm to obtain an embedding vector (Par. 0042-0043 and Par. 0071-0074 Wu).
McQueary and Wu are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, social network. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, provides for learning user classes and assigning those classes to additional users of McQueary to include the known group embedding of Wu, to allow for accessing content in order to track users interaction with a particular website (Par. 0004-0005 Wu).
As to claim 11 McQueary in combination with Curran and Wu teaches each and every limitation of claim 10.
McQueary in combination with Curran does not teach but Wu teaches wherein using the two-class classifier comprises applying the embedding vector to the two-class classifier (Par. 0071-0074 Wu).
As to claim 12 McQueary in combination with Curran and Wu teaches each and every limitation of claim 10.
In addition McQueary teaches further comprises determining a feature vector from a profile of the additional user and wherein using the multi-class classifier comprises applying the embedding vector and the feature vector to the multi-class classifier (Par. 0094-0098 McQueary).
As to claim 13 McQueary teaches a method comprising:
the label being assigned to the user without determining how the user has reacted to past messages containing misinformation (McQueary Par. 0096);
McQueary does not teach but Curran teaches the label indicating how the user will react to messages containing misinformation and messages containing refutations of misinformation (Par. 0035, 0043-0044 Curran);
McQueary and Curran are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, social network. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, provides for learning user classes and assigning those classes to additional users of McQueary to include the expressly uses user behavior and social relationships of Curran, to allow for accessing content in order to track users interaction with a particular website (Par. 0001-0002 Curran).
McQueary in combination with Curran does not teach but Wu teaches retrieving social network connections of a user from a database (Par. 0071-0074 Wu);
using the social network connections to assign a label to the user (Par. 0016-0020, Par. 0070 Wu).
McQueary and Wu are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, social network. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, provides for learning user classes and assigning those classes to additional users of McQueary to include the known group embedding of Wu, to allow for accessing content in order to track users interaction with a particular website (Par. 0004-0005 Wu).
As to claim 14 McQueary in combination with Curran and Wu teaches each and every limitation of claim 13.
In addition Wu teaches wherein using the social network connections to assign the label to the user comprises:
applying the social network connections to a graph embedding algorithm to produce a graph embedded vector; and applying the graph embedded vector to at least one classifier (Par. 0042, 0043 and Par. 0071-0074 Wu).
As to claim 15 McQueary in combination with Curran and Wu teaches each and every limitation of claim 14.
In addition McQueary teaches wherein applying the graph embedded vector to at least one classifier comprises:
applying the graph embedded vector to a two-class classifier to determine whether to assign a disengaged label to the user that indicates that the user is expected to not send copies of messages containing misinformation and is not expected to send copies of messages containing refutations of misinformation (Par. 0042, 0043 and Par. 0071-0074 Wu).
As to claim 16 McQueary in combination with Curran and Wu teaches each and every limitation of claim 15.
In addition McQueary teaches wherein applying the graph embedded vector to at least one classifier further comprises:
when the user is not assigned the disengaged label, applying the graph embedded vector to a multi-class classifier to assign one of a plurality of labels to the user (Par. 0071-0074 Wu).
As to claim 17 McQueary in combination with Curran and Wu teaches each and every limitation of claim 16.
In addition Curran teaches wherein the plurality of labels comprise:
a malicious label indicating that the user is expected to send a copy of a message containing misinformation after receiving a message containing a refutation of the misinformation; a maybe-malicious label indicating that the user is expected to send a copy of a message containing misinformation before receiving a message containing a refutation of the misinformation and are further expected to not send a copy of the message containing the refutation; a naïve label indicating that the user is expected to send a copy of a message containing misinformation before receiving a message containing a refutation of the misinformation and is further expected to send a copy of the message containing the refutation of the misinformation; and an informed-sharer label that indicates that the user is expected to not send a copy of a message containing misinformation (Par. 0035-0039 and Par. 43 and 0044 Curran).
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McQueary et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0316082 (herein as ‘McQueary’) and further in view of Wu et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0379628 (herein as ‘Wu’).
As to claim 18 McQueary teaches a system comprising:
a two-class classifier that places a user in one of two classes based upon social network connections of the user (Par. 0088, 0094-0098 McQueary);
and a multi-class classifier that places the user in one of a plurality of classes based upon the social network connections of the user (Par. 0089 McQueary);
McQueary does not teach but Wu teaches wherein the multi-class classifier is not used when the user is placed in a first class of the two classes by the two-class classifier and is used when the user is placed in a second class of the two classes by the two-class classifier (Par. 0042, 0043 and Par. 0071-0074 Wu).
McQueary and Wu are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, social network. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, provides for learning user classes and assigning those classes to additional users of McQueary to include the known group embedding of Wu, to allow for accessing content in order to track users interaction with a particular website (Par. 0004-0005 Wu).
As to claim 19 McQueary in combination with Wu teaches each and every limitation of claim 18.
In addition Wu teaches wherein the two-class classifier and the multi-class classifier place the user in a class without information about how the user has interacted with messages in the past (Par. 0016 and 0071 Wu).
As to claim 20 McQueary in combination with Wu teaches each and every limitation of claim 18.
In addition Wu teaches comprising a graph embedding algorithm wherein the social network connections of the user are applied to the graph embedding algorithm to produce a graph embedded vector (Par. 0042, 0043, 0071-0074 and Wu);
McQueary teaches and the two-class classifier and the multi-class classifier classify the user based on the graph embedded vector (Par. 0088 and 0089 McQueary).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERMAINE A MINCEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5010. The examiner can normally be reached 8am EST until 5pm 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, Ann J Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9767. 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.
/JERMAINE A MINCEY/ September 05, 2026Examiner, Art Unit 2159
Prosecution Insights