DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the following claim terms are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2111.
Step 1: Does the Claim Fall within a Statutory Category? (see MPEP 2106.03) Claim 1 recites a process, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES). Claim 11 recites a system, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES). Claim 20 recites an apparatus, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: Is a Judicial Exception Recited? (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). Yes.
The claims are analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. The following claims identify the limitations that recite additional elements in bold and the abstract idea without bold. Underlined claim limitations denote newly added claim limitations:
Claim 1, 11, and 20 recite a method comprising: authenticating, by one or more processors, a first user of a plurality of users configured to access a data exchange platform; retrieving, by the one or more processors, responsive to authenticating the first user, a profile associated with the first user from the data exchange platform, the profile comprising an initial tier assigned to the profile associated with the first user; receiving, by the one or more processors, via a user interface field rendered on a user device, first data supplied by the first user; storing, by the one or more processors, the first data in a data structure communicatively coupled to the data exchange platform, the first data stored with an association to the initial tier determining, by the one or more processors, a score for the first data, the score determined for the first data according to existing data included in the data structure; determining, by the one or more processors, an updated tier assigned to the profile associated with the first user, based on the score determined for the first data; and transmitting, by the one or more processors, second data from the data structure to the first user via the user device based on the updated tier assigned to the profile associated with the first user, the second data comprising data stored in the data structure with an association to the updated tier and received from a subset of users from the plurality of users, the subset of users corresponding to the updated tier assigned to the profile associated with the first user. These limitations, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance via certain methods of organizing human activity, but for the recitation of generic computer components. Under human activity, the limitations are fundamental economic practice, such as trading. The claims are also commercial interactions, specifically business relations, and managing interactions between (following instructions). Lastly, the claims are capable of being performed in the human mind, such as by pen and paper. More specifically, under fundamental economic practice, the claims involve mitigating risk. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The mere recitation of generic computer components in the claims do not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: Yes. The claims recite an abstract idea).
Step 2A, Prong Two: Is the Abstract Idea Integrated into a Practical Application? (see MPEP 2106.04(d)). No.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a system, processor, exchange platform, processing circuit, processor, memory, non-transitory computer-readable medium, a user device and a user interface. The additional elements of a system, processor, exchange platform, processing circuit, processor, memory, non-transitory computer-readable medium, a user device, are just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements of user interface are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, for the particular technology of Graphical User Interfaces (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The computer components are recited at such a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer components) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components, and the claims fail to recite technological detail as to how the step of the judicial exception is accomplished. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application).
Step 2B: Does the Claim Provide an Inventive Concept? (see MPEP 2106.05). No.
The claims are next analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept). As discussed with respect to Step 2A2 above, the additional elements of (system, processor, exchange platform, processing circuit, processor, memory, non-transitory computer-readable medium, a user device and a user interface) in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and generally linking the use of GUI’s to judicial exception. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and generally linking the use of GUI’s to judicial exception cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B: NO; The claims do not provide significantly more, and are not patent eligible).
Claim 2 recites further comprising transmitting, by the one or more processors, the first data from the data structure to the subset of users. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the processors are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 1 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 3 recites, further comprising training, by the one or more processors, an artificial intelligence (AI) model to generate scores for data provided as a first input to the AI model, according to a training set included as a second input to the AI model. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 4 recites wherein the score assigned to the first data is based on at least one of a quantity of the first data or a data quality metric associated with the first data. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 5 recites wherein an increase in the score assigned to the first data corresponds to an increase in the updated tier assigned to the profile associated with the first user. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 6 recites wherein the increase in the updated tier assigned to the profile associated with the first user corresponds to receiving second data associated with at least one of a higher quantity or a higher data quality metric than a quantity or a data quality metric associated with data received at the initial tier assigned to the profile associated with the first user. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 7 recites further comprising computing, by the one or more processors, a duration of time from receiving the first data from the first user to transmitting the second data to the first user. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the processors are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 1 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 8 recites wherein the score assigned to the first data and the duration of time from receiving the first data from the first user to transmitting the second data to the first user are inversely related, such that the duration increases as the score decreases. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 9 recites wherein the updated tier assigned to the profile associated with the first user is below the initial tier assigned to the profile associated with the first user. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 10 recites The method of claim 1, wherein the updated tier assigned to the profile associated with the first user is one of: a first tier, wherein at the first tier the first user receives a first amount of information related to a data entry; or a second tier, wherein at the second tier the first user receives a second amount of information related to the data entry, the second amount of information related to the data entry being more granular than the first amount of information related to the data entry. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 12 recites the instructions further causing the processing circuit to transmit the first data from the data structure to the subset of users. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 11, and the system and the system and the processing circuit is addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 11 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 11, supra.
Claim 13 recites the instructions further causing the processing circuit to train an artificial intelligence (AI) model to generate scores for data provided as a first input to the AI model, according to a training set included as a second input to the AI model. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 11, and the processing circuit is addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 11 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 11, supra.
Claim 14 recites wherein the score assigned to the first data is based on at least one of a quantity of the first data or a data quality metric associated with the first data. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 11, and the system is addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 11 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 11, supra.
Claim 15 recites wherein an increase in the score assigned to the first data corresponds to an increase in the updated tier assigned to the profile associated with the first user. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 11, and the system is addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 11 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 11, supra.
Claim 16 recites wherein the increase in the updated tier assigned to the profile associated with the first user corresponds to receiving second data associated with at least one of a higher quantity or a higher data quality metric than a quantity or a data quality metric associated with data received at the initial tier assigned to the profile associated with the first user. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 11, and the system is addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 11 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 11, supra.
Claim 17 recites the instructions further causing the processing circuit to compute a duration of time from receiving the first data from the first user to transmitting the second data to the first user. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 11, and the system and the processing circuit are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 11 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 11, supra.
Claim 18 recites wherein the score assigned to the first data and the duration of time from receiving the first data from the first user to transmitting the second data to the first user are inversely related, such that the duration increases as the score decreases. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 11, and the system is addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 11 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 11, supra.
Claim 19 recites wherein the updated tier assigned to the profile associated with the first user is below the initial tier assigned to the profile associated with the first user. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 11, and the system is addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 11 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 11, supra.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 9-12, 14-16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barmes US 10339147, in view of Ramchandran US 20200286025.
Regarding claims 1, 11 and 20, Barmes discloses a method comprising:
authenticating, by one or more processors, a first user of a plurality of users configured to access a data exchange platform (Barmes, Customer “user” selects data via marketplace, with the file containing metadata to be authenticated by the user, Co. 3, Lines 36-40; “After receiving the manifest file, client device may authenticate to a distributed data store 104,” Col. 3, Lines 50-55);
retrieving, by the one or more processors, responsive to authenticating the first user, a profile associated with the first user from the data exchange platform, the profile comprising an initial tier assigned to the profile associated with the first user (Barmes, Fig. 1, After authentication, access to 104; Fig. 1, Data is scored based on several attributes which feed into a “data score”);
receiving, by the one or more processors, via a user interface field rendered on a user device, first data supplied by the first user (Barmes, Fig. 1, device 110 receives scored daya that is “tiered” based on attributes and “scores”);
storing, by the one or more processors, the first data in a data structure communicatively coupled to the data exchange platform, the first data stored with an association to the initial tier determining, by the one or more processors, a score for the first data, the score determined for the first data according to existing data included in the data structure (Barmes, Fig. 1, Data field with attributes 1 to 5, are scored and “tiered” based on values and ID number, with each attribute producing a “score” and tiered accordingly; Each ID # receives a score (1,2,…), which is considered a “score of the first data..”; Analyzer 415 may determine a quality of data values and may fill empty data values to increase the characteristic score assigned by the scorer for one of the plurality of different characteristics, Col. 15, Lines 29-42);
determining, by the one or more processors, a tier assigned to the profile associated with the first user, based on the score determined for the first data (Barmes, Claim 3, Updated “tier” based on freshness from an update of the data set; The data set may be ranked against a plurality of other data sets based on the score, Col. 2, Lines 24-26; “Sorter 430 may sort the data set and the plurality of other data sets based on the rank and filter criteria”;
Barmes fails to disclose an updated tier based on the data and score associated with the first data. However, Barmes teaches freshness of data with frequent updates with ranking capabilities (Claim 1-2).
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective data of filing, to have modified Barmes with updated data within different ID slots (Fig. 1). Doing so enables more accurate ranked data more closely associated with the user’s search desires (Claim 1, providing data set in part on rank and in response to search request).
Barmes also discloses transmitting, by the one or more processors, second data from the data structure to the first user via the user device based on the updated tier assigned to the profile associated with the first user (Barmes, Fig. 2, Data marketplace sends different data sets 1, 2, or 3 to the user based on search words supplied by the user; Second data being supplied by attributes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5….n, from Fig. 1),
Barmes fails to disclose the second data comprising data stored in the data structure with an association to the updated tier and received from a subset of users from the plurality of users, the subset of users corresponding to the updated tier assigned to the profile associated with the first user. However, Ramchandran discloses a data assessment and monitoring tool (102) with a score aggregator (134) that contains aggregated tiered scores (140; 142…148) with a subset of users from a plurality of users (182 showing multiple users) with different rules and weights (112 and 113) that customize for hierarchical data entity units (150) which influence different weights (136) based on search criteria and the scoring aggregator (134) capable of aggregating and scoring data from different tiers that include each previous tier (Para. 23, “A hierarchical scoring aggregator 134 is operable to aggregate a first set of data quality scores 118 for a first hierarchical data entity unit of the plurality of hierarchical data entity units 150 into a first tier aggregate data quality score 142, to aggregate a second set of the data quality scores 118 for a second hierarchical data entity unit of the plurality of hierarchical data entity units into another first tier aggregate data quality score 142, and to further aggregate the first tier aggregate data quality score 142 for the first hierarchical data entity unit and the first tier aggregate data quality score 142 for the second hierarchical data entity unit into a second tier aggregate data quality score 144. Hierarchical scoring aggregator 134 is further operable to aggregate a plurality of second tier aggregate data quality scores 144 for a plurality of hierarchical data entity units 150 into a third tier aggregate data quality score 146, using differently-customized rules and weights for different hierarchical data entity units in the plurality of hierarchical data entity units. Higher tier scores 148 can further be aggregated using multiple lower tier aggregated scores (e.g., multiple third tier aggregate data quality scores 146). In some examples, aggregating data quality scores into first tier aggregate data quality score 142 comprises using rules 112 and aggregation weights 136 customized for a particular hierarchical data entity unit 150, such that a first hierarchical data entity unit 150 and a second hierarchical data entity unit 150 have differently-customized rules 112 and aggregation weights 136. Aggregation weights 136 and aggregation score values 138 are described in more detail in relation to FIG. 2. In general, any tier of scores in aggregate data quality scores 140 can be rolled up with aggregation weights 136, from business entity level, up through enterprise operational level, as will be described in more detail in relation to FIG. 3”).
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective data of filing, to have modified Barmes with data aggregator based on different tiers based on different data from different users. Doing so allows for greater accuracy of the ranking system, while pulling data from different sources while increasing capability between different users and different search terms.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, modified Barmes discloses further comprising transmitting, by the one or more processors, the first data from the data structure to the subset of users (Barmes, “Manifest file may be provided to a shared data store…accessible by the client device 110; Ramchandran, 182 with multiple users can access the aggregated scores that are tired scores).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, modified Barmes discloses wherein the score assigned to the first data is based on at least one of a quantity of the first data or a data quality metric associated with the first data (Barmes, score is based on quality of the data, “The metadata may also include one or more scores representing a quality of the data”; Ramchandran, Score engine 116 with data quality scores 118)
Regarding claims 5 and 15, modified Barmes discloses wherein an increase in the score assigned to the first data corresponds to an increase in the updated tier assigned to the profile associated with the first user (Barmes, as the data score increases, it rises in the scoring rank; Higher score equals a higher rank (“tier”); Ramchandran, Increase in score 118 is associated with an increased tier (140)).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, modified Barmes discloses where the increase in the updated tier assigned to the profile associated with the first user corresponds to receiving second data associated with at least one of a higher quantity or a higher data quality metric than a quantity or a data quality metric associated with data received at the initial tier assigned to the profile associated with the first user (Barmes, a high-scoring dataset which is ranked above lower ones and searched more often and returned in results for a user, results in the user associated with a higher ranked grouping seeing more high-quality and refined data when limited to a lower tier user; Ramchandran, User sees higher quality tiered data as usage increases. For example, a user can go from 2rd tier 146 to second tier 144 and then to first tier 142).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, wherein the updated tier assigned to the profile associated with the first user is below the initial tier assigned to the profile associated with the first user (Barmes, Updated search results are grouped or scored above a initial search result from the user as “freshness” declines, such as re-scoring as data characteristics change; Ramachandran, Para. 23, Higher tiered scores represent potentially different customizable rules and weights 136, which might impact higher tier ranking for the user).
Regarding claim 10, wherein the updated tier assigned to the profile associated with the first user is one of:
a first tier, wherein at the first tier the first user receives a first amount of information related to a data entry (Barmes, Fig. 5, Assigning a first characteristic score to the a first characteristic, with the potential to increase to multiple characteristics (530+); Ramachandran, Rules manager 108, with dimensions, rules, weights, and rule sets, while assigning a data quality score 118).
Claim(s) 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barmes US 10339147, in view of Ramchandran US 20200286025, as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, further in view of Cao US 20170236058.
Regarding claims 3 and 13, modified Barmes discloses using machine learning for data analyzation (Data analyzer 114 consumable with machine learning adaptability), but fails to disclose training, by the one or more processors, an artificial intelligence (AI) model to generate scores for data provided as a first input to the Al model, according to a training set included as a second input to the Al model. However, Cao discloses generating a training model by obtaining user scores on data samples and using the scores to train a model to automatically rate other samples (Fig. 2, Sample set 220 to User 230 with rating to training model 240 which rates to 210 back to 220; Also, Fig. 3, with 230 rating to 350 to 240, then to 210 and back to 350; Fig. 4, S402 to step S408).
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of filing, to have modified Barmes with Caos generated training model based on feedback. Doing so allows for more accurate data input and output for the user and creates a more accurate model for prediction purposes.
Claim(s) 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barmes US 10339147, in view of Ramchandran US 20200286025, as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, further in view of Stanar US 20160299781.
Regarding claims 7 and 17, modified Barmes fails to disclose further comprising computing, by the one or more processors, a duration of time from receiving the first data from the first user to transmitting the second data to the first user. However, Stanar discloses a queue manager 510 that examines different queue entries (532….538) to determine the more appropriate entry point to distribute to the user (Para. 61, Lead profiles may be reordered based on “time” slots with the earlier appointment slot being reordered higher in the queue by the lead queue system 105).
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of filing, to have modified Barmes with Stanar’s queue system. Doing so ensures that the highest likely lead is being served first to increase quality of service, as well as increase profitability and efficiency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON M DUCK whose telephone number is (469)295-9049. The examiner can normally be reached 8am - 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, Michael Anderson can be reached at 571-270-0508. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRANDON M DUCK/Examiner, Art Unit 3693