DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This Non-Final Office Action is in reply to the application filed on 20 February 2024.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements filed on 03/15/2024 has been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation analysing by the processor. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites, cause the application server. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The dependent claims 2-9 and 11-18 fail to remedy the deficiencies of the independent claims and are therefore similarly rejected.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract without significantly more.
Under Step 1 the claims are analyzed to determine whether they are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. See MPEP §2106.03.
Claims 1-9 are directed to a method, claims 10-18 are directed to a server system and claims 19-20 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. Therefore, the claims fall within the statutory categories of invention.
Under Step 2A Prong 1, the claims are analyzed to determine whether the claims recite any judicial exceptions including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes). See MPEP §2106.04.
Independent claims 1, 10 and 19 recite a mental process as they include the limitations, analysing,… a plurality of profile data points associated with a digital profile of a user, wherein the plurality of profile data points is associated with a corresponding digital platform of a plurality of digital platforms, the plurality of profile data points comprising information related to at least one of the profile information, profile reviews, and profile settings; computing,… a grade for each of the plurality of profile data points associated with the plurality of digital platforms based, at least in part, on analysis of the plurality of profile data points, the grade indicating a weightage of each of the plurality of profile data points; and computing,… a reputation grade indicative of the online reputation and listings of the digital profile associated with the user based, at least in part, on the grade assigned for the plurality of profile data points. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the specification, the steps of analyzing profile data points and computing a grade and reputation grade encompass mental processes practically performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP §2106.04(a) Part III, C.
Dependent claims 2, 11 and 20 recite, computing, a cumulative grade for each of the plurality of digital platforms based at least on the grade assigned to each of the plurality of profile data points associated with the corresponding digital platform of the plurality of digital platforms, wherein the reputation grade indicative of the online reputation and listings of the digital profile of the user is computed based at least on the cumulative grade of each of the plurality of digital platforms.
Dependent claims 3 and 12 recite, wherein the plurality of profile data points corresponds to predefined analytical templates for the plurality of digital platforms that are associated with grading the digital profile of the user.
Dependent claims 4 and 13 recite, monitoring, one or more attributes associated with the digital profile of the user at regular intervals, the one or more attributes corresponding to the plurality of profile data points, content, and reviews; and dynamically computing, the reputation grade for the digital profile associated with the user corresponding to determining at least one attribute among the one or more attributes is updated for the digital profile associated with the user.
Dependent claims 5 and 14 recite, determining, the online reputation and listings of the digital profile of the user based at least on accessing search results from one or more search engines.
Dependent claims 6 and 15 recite, generating, an analytics report for the user based at least on details in the plurality of profile data points, the grade associated with each of the plurality of profile data points, the cumulative grade associated with each of the plurality of digital platforms, and the reputation grade for the digital profile of the user.
Dependent claims 7 and 16 recite, determining, one or more errors associated with the digital profile being listed in the plurality of digital platforms; and generating, recommendations to the user of the digital profile based at least on the one or more errors associated with the digital profile in the corresponding digital platform.
Similar to claims 1, 10 and 19, dependent claims 2-7, 11-16 and 20 further recite a mental process as they include steps based on human observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, either mentally or with the aid of pen/paper.
Dependent claims 8, 9, 17 and 18 recite, creating, by the processor, a review link for each of the plurality of digital platforms; and transmitting, the review link to at least one client user for seeking reviews on the digital profile associated with the user; receiving, at least one input related to customization of the reviews for the digital profile from the user, the at least one input comprising upload custom reviews to the digital profile. Under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be considered as belonging to methods of organizing human activity abstract idea category since they are directed to steps for enabling a client user to seek reviews on the digital profile associated with the user and also enabling a user to indicate the customization of the reviews for the digital profile. This is a method of managing business activities. Thus the claim recites an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.02 (a)(2) subsection II, C.
Under Step 2A Prong 2 the claims are analyzed to determine whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP §2106.04(d).
Claims 1-20 recite the additional elements, the processor, a server system, a communication interface, a memory storing executable instructions; and a processor operatively coupled with the communication interface and the memory, a non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising computer-executable instructions. The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality and perform generic computing functions such as analyzing, computing, monitoring, generating, determining, creating, receiving, transmitting, and controlling display. In this case, the claims merely involve automated steps executed by generic computer components recited above at a high-level of generality with no technical improvement to the functioning of the processor, server system, communication interface, memory, non-transitory computer readable storage medium since the additional element is no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computing components.
The claims recite the additional limitations “ controlling display of reviews”. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality and amount to mere data output and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
When considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The sequence of the claimed limitations is equally generic and otherwise held to be abstract since the combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. Therefore, the additional elements recited in the claimed invention individually, and even in combination, fail to integrate the recited judicial exception into any practical application since they do not impose any non-generic meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Under Step 2B the claims are analyzed to determine whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception.
Claims 1-20 as a whole do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The same analysis applies here in 2B and does not provide an inventive concept.
For the displaying step that was considered extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two, this has been re-evaluated in Step 2B and determined to be well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. The TLI and OIP Techs. court decisions indicate that mere data transmission and presentation is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. Thus, under Step 2B, the claims are ineligible as the claims do not recite additional elements which result in significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
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) 1-7, 10-16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erickson et al (US Patent #US 10,963,943 B1) in view of Genner et al (US 2017/0134366 A1).
Claims 1, 10 and 19: Erickson discloses a computer-implemented method, a server system, comprising: a communication interface; a memory storing executable instructions; and a processor operatively coupled with the communication interface and the memory, the processor configured to execute the executable instructions and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising computer-executable instructions that, when executed by at least a processor of a server system, cause the server system to perform a method comprising::
analysing, by the processor, a plurality of profile data points associated with a digital profile of a user, wherein the plurality of profile data points is associated with a corresponding digital platform of a plurality of digital platforms, the plurality of profile data points comprising information related to at least one of the profile information and profile setting (see col. 3 lines 10-24: Each facet's score can be determined by data received by the digital data reputation platform from any one or more of numerous sources available on the internet, through retailers, solicitors, social media, publications, self-published content, credit card information, online shopping data, web history, or any other digital data store that can be obtained either through digital mining or through the user's consent. Col. 5 lines 14-20: FIG. 1B illustrates that the personal facet score can include sub-scores to characterize one or more personal attributes of an individual. As shown in FIG. 1B, some examples of personal attributes may include family, friends, community, lifestyle, faith, and health. In some implementations the various listed personal attributes may be selected by the user. Col. 9 lines 5-10: analyze the reputation data sources and can provide a view of what user data is accessible, by whom, how it is likely currently being used, how it might be used in the future and what the impact of that data is or could be on the digital reputation score);
computing, by the processor, a grade for each of the plurality of profile data points associated with the plurality of digital platforms based, at least in part, on analysis of the plurality of profile data points, the grade indicating a weightage of each of the plurality of profile data points (see col. 4 lines 4-10: In some implementations, the user can adjust the weight each facet plays on the overall score shown in section 120 based on which facet is more important to the user. The overall digital data reputation score can be comprised of the scores from the facets and what weight each facet has on the overall score can be customized by the user if they chose to focus on certain facets over others); and
computing, by the processor, a reputation grade indicative of the online reputation and listings of the digital profile associated with the user based, at least in part, on the grade assigned for the plurality of profile data points (see Fig. 1a, col. 4 lines 10-18: The overall score section 120 may include line or bar 121 that can be used to characterize a user's overall digital reputation score. In some implementations, the line or bar 121 may include colors that can indicate a range of digital reputation scores that can be characterized as poor 121a, moderate 121b, or excellent 121c. As shown as an example, based on the weight assigned by the user to each facet, the marker 122 indicates that the user's overall reputation is moderate).
Erickson does not expressly disclose plurality of profile data points related to at least one of the profile reviews but Genner in the same field of endeavor teaches, plurality of profile data points related to at least one of the profile reviews (see [0060]: other factors to determine a Trust Score 196 is by analyzing the reviews the subscriber receives from e-commerce Internet sites. For example, e-commerce data 120 may be used to determine if the subscriber dealt fairly with customers or sellers in transactions based upon whether he received positive or negative reviews).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the reputation management of Erickson, profile data points related to at least one of the profile reviews as taught of Genner in order to identify the trustworthiness of individuals (Genner, [0013]).
Claims 2, 11 and 20: The combination of Erickson and Genner discloses the claimed invention as applied to claims 1, 10 and 19 above. Erickson further teaches, computing, by the processor, a cumulative grade for each of the plurality of digital platforms based at least on the grade assigned to each of the plurality of profile data points associated with the corresponding digital platform of the plurality of digital platforms, wherein the reputation grade indicative of the online reputation and listings of the digital profile of the user is computed based at least on the cumulative grade of each of the plurality of digital platforms (see col. 3 lines 10-58: the user's digital reputation score can be determined by the digital data reputation platform by scanning internet websites the score determination can provide as comprehensive a view of the user as possible using all the available data source).
Claims 3 and 12: The combination of Erickson and Genner discloses the claimed invention as applied to claims 1 and 10 above. Erickson further teaches, wherein the plurality of profile data points corresponds to predefined analytical templates for the plurality of digital platforms that are associated with grading the digital profile of the user (see col. 3 lines 20-27: n some implementations, the user's digital reputation score can be determined by the digital data reputation platform by scanning internet websites for reputational information related to the user, analyzing the reputational information based at least in part on a set of keywords, scoring the reputational information based at least in part on a set of keywords specific to each website).
Claims 4 and 13: The combination of Erickson and Genner discloses the claimed invention as applied to claims 1 and 10 above. Erickson further teaches, monitoring, by the processor, one or more attributes associated with the digital profile of the user at regular intervals, the one or more attributes corresponding to the plurality of profile data points, content, and reviews; and dynamically computing, by the processor, the reputation grade for the digital profile associated with the user corresponding to determining at least one attribute among the one or more attributes is updated for the digital profile associated with the user (see col. 9 lines 39-62: For instance, the impact column can provide a button which when clicked brings up a visual pop-up of the reports shown in FIGS. 1A and 1B. This way the reputation-mapper tool can provide a simulated view of the future impact on your scores for each of the line-items. For instance, the user can uncheck parameters, such as their LinkedIn profile, from being shared publicly and review the impact made on their professional reputation and their social network. Removing their LinkedIn profile may have a much larger impact on the user's professional reputation than the user's social network. Furthermore, a clickable map icon can be provided in the impact column as well, which can bring up a US or a global map with potentially different reputation scores in different regions based on the same data set. For instance, Europe has stricter privacy controls than the US, and hiding/suppressing Personally Identifiable Information (“PII”) such as social security number may not have a major impact on financial reputation scores in Europe, but could have a major impact in the US where a number of Know-Your-Customer (KYC) algorithms run by the major financial institutions rely on such data. In some embodiments, the system can generate and display histograms or other visuals that can change in real-time (e.g., rising, falling) as the user adjusts parameters back and forth).
Claims 5 and 14: The combination of Erickson and Genner discloses the claimed invention as applied to claims 1 and 10 above. Genner further teaches, determining, by the processor, the online reputation and listings of the digital profile of the user based at least on accessing search results from one or more search engines (see [0073] Also, in any of these applications, an icon, image, photograph of the subscriber, or a similar representation may be uploaded to Trust Stamp by the subscriber. This photograph may then be used in an image search on a social media 110 site or e-commerce 120 platform to find additional sources of data related to the subscriber to determine if the image is that of the subscriber. In addition, in any of these applications, the data obtained and any inconsistencies therein may be used to predict the future likelihood of stipulated behaviors.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the reputation management of Erickson as modified by Genner, determining, by the processor, the online reputation and listings of the digital profile of the user based at least on accessing search results from one or more search engines as taught of Genner to be used to predict the future likelihood of stipulated behaviors (Genner, [0073]).
Claims 6 and 15: The combination of Erickson and Genner discloses the claimed invention as applied to claims 1 and 10 above. Erickson further teaches, generating, by the processor, an analytics report for the user based at least on details in the plurality of profile data points, the grade associated with each of the plurality of profile data points, the cumulative grade associated with each of the plurality of digital platforms, and the reputation grade for the digital profile of the user (see col. 2 lines 38-42: FIG. 1A shows an embodiment of a digital data reputation score report 100 that can provide an individual with his or her reputation related information. As further described in the sections below, the digital data reputation platform can generate the digital data reputation score report 100).
Claims 7 and 16: The combination of Erickson and Genner discloses the claimed invention as applied to claims 1 and 10 above. Erickson further teaches, determining, by the processor, one or more errors associated with the digital profile being listed in the plurality of digital platforms; and generating, by the processor, recommendations to the user of the digital profile based at least on the one or more errors associated with the digital profile in the corresponding digital platform (see col. 5 lines 30-33: an example recommendation for how to stop data leaks in the personal facet might be to alter the user's security setting on social media applications).
Claim(s) 8, 9, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erickson and Genner as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Shuster (US 2009/0265639 A1).
Claims 8 and 17: The combination of Erickson and Genner discloses the claimed invention as applied to claims 1 and 10 above. Erickson and Genner do not expressly disclose creating, by the processor, a review link for each of the plurality of digital platforms; and transmitting, by the processor, the review link to at least one client user for seeking reviews on the digital profile associated with the user but Shuster in the same field of endeavor teaches, creating, by the processor, a review link for each of the plurality of digital platforms; and transmitting, by the processor, the review link to at least one client user for seeking reviews on the digital profile associated with the user (See Fig. 2, [0034] For further example, host computer 120 may solicit and accept input from other users regarding reliability of Smith's claimed attributes. For example, host computer may serve a veracity feedback page 200 for John Smith to any user that requests it, as shown in FIG. 2. The veracity feedback page 200 may include one or more interactive graphical objects 202 for receiving feedback from a user viewing the page, such as checkboxes or the like).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Erickson and Genner with the system and method of creating, by the processor, a review link for each of the plurality of digital platforms; and transmitting, by the processor, the review link to at least one client user for seeking reviews on the digital profile associated with the user as taught by Shuster in order to determine a risk profile of any single user in response to veracity feedback from one or more other users of the social networking application (Shuster, [0025]).
Claims 9 and 18: The combination of Erickson, Genner and Shuster discloses the claimed invention as applied to claims 8 and 17 above. Shuster further teaches, receiving, by the processor, at least one input related to customization of the reviews for the digital profile from the user, the at least one input comprising upload custom reviews to the digital profile, and controlling display of reviews for the digital profile (see [0034]: a pop-up window may appear with the profile page, asking the viewer to provide feedback regarding the profile data, with the options "I can't verify anything" or "I can verify something." If the user selects "I can't verify anything" the host may record the input cumulative to a count of users for whom "John Smith" is not known. Conversely, if the user selects "I can verify something," the host may serve another window similar to window 200 soliciting the user's survey responses for reliability of the listed attribute data. [0047]: a means for publishing, on the social network, the confidence score of the first user's personal data to one or more users of the social network. In this way, other users will be able to see whether the information provided by the first user can be trusted or not).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in Erickson as modified by Genner and Shuster with the system and method of receiving, by the processor, at least one input related to customization of the reviews for the digital profile from the user, the at least one input comprising upload custom reviews to the digital profile, and controlling display of reviews for the digital profile as taught by Shuster so that “other users will be able to see whether the information provided by the first user can be trusted or not” (Shuster, [0047]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Barber et al (US 20090178125 A1): [0080] The verifying user 230 is able to audit the anonymous digital credentials included in the reputation profile of client 210. For instance, the verifying user 230 can compare the client identifier, USERNAME-1, that is associated with the participation in FORUM-1, against the username displayed as part of the anonymous digital credentials of the reputation profile.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAAME BALLOU whose telephone number is (571)270-1359. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Lynda Jasmin can be reached at 571-272-6782. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
MAAME BALLOU
Examiner
Art Unit 3629
/MAAME BALLOU/Examiner, Art Unit 3629
/LYNDA JASMIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights