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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s representative argues that:
claim 21 as a whole is in compliance with 35 U.S.C. §101 because analysis under Step 2A Prong Two demonstrates that any purported judicial exception 1s integrated into a practical application that demonstrates an improvement to a technology or technical field as recited in MPEP §2106.04(d)(1) and as reiterated in the August 5, 2025 Memorandum. Specifically, claim 21 links calculation of an adjudication score (via the metrics that Examiner Poinvil noted were not taught or suggested in the prior art) for a proposed fact submitted by a subscriber to the awarding of a bounty that was provided by the subscriber. This combination of elements when viewed as a whole is an improvement in the field of sorting out disinformation by (a) creating a market incentive for the subscriber to submit true facts; and (b)
creating a market incentive for a claimant to challenge false information. Accordingly, the claim as a whole results in a novel market incentive to reduce incidence of false information. Accordingly, claim 21 recites meaningful limitations that improves a technological area, with such improvement not being taught or suggested in the prior art. As such, amended claim 21 is patent eligible under Step 2A Prong Two. Thus, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection of claims 21-35 under 35 U.S.C. §101.
In response, it appears that the applicant is arguing issues regarding a 35 USC 102 or 35 USC 103 rejections. The applicant is reminded 35 USC 101 is a matter of law not necessarily unlike “an art rejection” which requires evidence. Thus, applicant’s argument is not convincing.
The presence or absence of an art rejection is not determinate of whether a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is in error. The question in step two of the Alice framework is not whether an additional feature is novel but whether the implementation of the abstract idea involves "more than [the] performance of 'well--understood, routine, [and] conventional activities previously known to the industry."' Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat. Ass 'n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347--48 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359).
The newly added language of “calculate an adjudication score…” of claim 21 involves a mental process using mathematical operations or concepts.
Applicant is directed to In re Grams, 888 F .2d 835, 837 n.1 (Fed. Cir. 1989) in stating that ("Words used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula."); see also Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (noting that analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, are essentially mental processes.
Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because :
The additional elements when considered both individually and as a combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims recite the additional elements of a computer system having a memory for communicating in an external wired or wireless mode.
The claimed elements taken individually or as a whole is seen as general purpose computer or a computer system in a communication network (see the applicant’s specification). These claimed devices are noted to perform routine computer functions such as processing data and calculating data.
The claimed processor is seen as a generic computer performing generic functions without an inventive concept as such does not amount to significantly more. The claimed elements are simply a field of use that attempts to limit the abstract idea to a particular environment. The type of data being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations. Looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are not patent eligible.
Furthermore, in Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc., the Courts held that claims to a method for making websites easier to navigate on a small-screen device were not directed to an abstract idea. 880 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Here, the claims are not drafted in the format CoreWireless. Rather than providing a technical solution that improves the way the computing device, the applicant is merely using alternate ways of using a computer for allowing a user to make a purchase based on favorable actions taken by a user. The computer system is then applied to the abstract idea. The claims do not provide sufficient details to transform the abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter. See, e.g. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2360 (explaining that claims that “amount to ‘nothing significantly more’ than an instruction to apply the abstract idea…using some unspecified, generic computer” is not ‘enough’ to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention” (quoting Mayo, 566, U.S. at 77, 79)); Intellectual Ventures LLC v. Capital One Fin.Corp., 850 F. 3d 1332, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“The claim language here provides only a result-oriented-solution with insufficient detail for how a computer accomplishes it”).
Additionally, the recitation of a processor with a memory and modem for communicating with external networks via wired or wireless communication as recited in the preamble of the claim does not represent significantly more than the abstract idea. "[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter." FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)); see also Alice. Accordingly, the claims do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea.
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 21-35 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Subject Matter Eligibility Standard
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Specifically, claim 21 is directed to a system. Each of the claims falls under one of the four statutory classes of invention under step 1.
If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea) under step 2.
Step 2A, Prong One: claim 1 recites the following limitations that are understood to recite an abstract idea.
Claim 21 recites:
(a) access said proposed fact, a proposed fact support, and a bounty submitted by a subscriber;
(b) access claimant information provided by a claimant, wherein the claimant information comprises a claimant claim and a claimant claim support submitted by the claimant;
(c) select applicable guidelines among the following guidelines to adjudicate the proposed fact support and the claimant claim support: 1) distance of a proposed fact source and a claimant claim source from an original source, 2) degree of bias present in the proposed fact source and the claimant claim source, 3) expertise of the proposed fact source and the claimant claim source, 4) level of data alteration present in the proposed fact and the claimant claim, 5) number of data points in the proposed fact and the claimant claim, 6) level of completeness in the proposed fact and the claimant claim;
(d) calculate an adjudication score for the proposed fact support and the claimant claim support based on a comparison of the proposed fact support and the claimant claim support using the selected applicable guidelines; and
(e) decide the adjudication of the proposed fact in favor of the subscriber or the claimant, wherein:
(i) the adjudication of the proposed fact is decided in favor of the subscriber when the adjudication score of the proposed fact support is higher than the adjudication score of the claimant claim support, whereby when the adjudication is decided in favor of the subscriber, the bounty submitted by the
(ii) the adjudication of the proposed fact is decided in favor of the claimant when the adjudication score of the claimant claim support is higher than the adjudication score of the claimant claim support, whereby when the adjudication is decided in favor of the claimant, the bounty submitted by the subscriber is distributed to the claimant.
Claim 22 recites a generic computer with a generic display device.
Claim 23 wherein the proposed fact is identified by a proposed fact icon that is configured to allow a subscriber to access auxiliary information about the proposed fact by clicking on the proposed fact icon, wherein the auxiliary information comprises a total bounty amount or the proposed fact support.
Claim 24 recites a counter to reflect a number of unique subscriber viewings of the proposed fact recorded by the computer system.
Claim 25 recites in response to the counter reaching a vetting threshold, identify[ies] the proposed fact as a certified fact and enters the certified fact.
Claim 26 recites wherein the entering of the certified fact to present the certified fact with a certified fact icon.
Claim 27 recites wherein the certified fact icon is configured to allow a subscriber to access auxiliary information by clicking on the certified fact icon, wherein the auxiliary information comprises a total bounty amount or factual support for the certified fact.
Claim 28 recites wherein the entering of the certified to present the certified fact with a visual identification feature that comprises a particular font, a font color, or a highlighting.
Claim 29 recites wherein when the adjudication is decided in favor of the claimant, the proposed fact is rewritten to reflect the adjudication.
Claim 30 recites a generic modem.
Claim 31 recites wherein the subscriber is a media outlet.
Claim 32 recites wherein the subscriber is a journalist.
Claim 33 recites a generic artificial intelligence which may be considered as a generic computer.
Claim 34 recites wherein the comparison of the expertise of the proposed fact source and the claimant claim source comprises comparing a number of years of experience of the proposed fact source and the claimant claim source within a field of study.
Claim 35 recites wherein the comparison of the level of completeness of the proposed fact and the claimant claim is determined by measuring an amount of omitted information in the proposed fact and the claimant claim.
The above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II), because they amount to limitations specifying steps for:
“generating an adjudication score for the proposed fact support and the claimant claim support based on a comparison of the proposed fact support and the claimant claim support using the selected applicable guidelines, and deciding the adjudication of the proposed fact in favor of the subscriber or the claimant”.
As per claim 21, applicant is to be noted that the steps or functions of “access” or “accessing” are considered as data gathering functions. The functions of “select” or “selecting”, “calculate” or “calculating” and “decide” or deciding” involve mental processes and/or generic computer functions.
Step 2A, Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, In particular, the clams recite the following bolded limitations understood to be additional limitations:
Claim 21 recites:
(a) access said proposed fact, a proposed fact support, and a bounty submitted by a subscriber;
(b) access claimant information provided by a claimant, wherein the claimant information comprises a claimant claim and a claimant claim support submitted by the claimant;
(c) select applicable guidelines among the following guidelines to adjudicate the proposed fact support and the claimant claim support: 1) distance of a proposed fact source and a claimant claim source from an original source, 2) degree of bias present in the proposed fact source and the claimant claim source, 3) expertise of the proposed fact source and the claimant claim source, 4) level of data alteration present in the proposed fact and the claimant claim, 5) number of data points in the proposed fact and the claimant claim, 6) level of completeness in the proposed fact and the claimant claim;
(d) calculate an adjudication score for the proposed fact support and the claimant claim support based on a comparison of the proposed fact support and the claimant claim support using the selected applicable guidelines; and
(e) decide the adjudication of the proposed fact in favor of the subscriber or the claimant, wherein:
(i) the adjudication of the proposed fact is decided in favor of the subscriber when the adjudication score of the proposed fact support is higher than the adjudication score of the claimant claim support, whereby when the adjudication is decided in favor of the subscriber, the bounty submitted by the
(ii) the adjudication of the proposed fact is decided in favor of the claimant when the adjudication score of the claimant claim support is higher than the adjudication score of the claimant claim support, whereby when the adjudication is decided in favor of the claimant, the bounty submitted by the subscriber is distributed to the claimant.
Claim 22 recites wherein the computer system further comprises a display device.
Claim 23 wherein the proposed fact is identified by a proposed fact icon that is configured to allow a subscriber to access auxiliary information about the proposed fact by clicking on the proposed fact icon, wherein the auxiliary information comprises a total bounty amount or the proposed fact support.
Claim 24 recites wherein the display device provides a counter to reflect a number of unique subscriber viewings of the proposed fact recorded by the computer system.
Claim 25 recites in response to the counter reaching a vetting threshold the computer system identifies the proposed fact as a certified fact and enters the certified fact into a certified fact database.
Claim 26 recites wherein the entering of the certified fact into the certified fact database causes the system to present the certified fact with a certified fact icon.
Claim 27 recites wherein the certified fact icon is configured to allow a subscriber to access auxiliary information by clicking on the certified fact icon, wherein the auxiliary information comprises a total bounty amount or factual support for the certified fact.
Claim 28 recites wherein the entering of the certified fact into the certified fact database causes the system to present the certified fact with a visual identification feature that comprises a particular font, a font color, or a highlighting.
Claim 29 recites wherein when the adjudication is decided in favor of the claimant, the proposed fact is rewritten to reflect the adjudication.
Claim 30 recites wherein the modem is a wireless modem.
Claim 31 recites wherein the subscriber is a media outlet.
Claim 32 recites wherein the subscriber is a journalist.
Claim 33 recites wherein the adjudication is decided using artificial intelligence.
Claim 34 recites wherein the comparison of the expertise of the proposed fact source and the claimant claim source comprises comparing a number of years of experience of the proposed fact source and the claimant claim source within a field of study.
Claim 35 recites wherein the comparison of the level of completeness of the proposed fact and the claimant claim is determined by measuring an amount of omitted information in the proposed fact and the claimant claim.
These limitations performing steps using one or more processors connected using one or more modems to communicate with external networks via wired or wireless communication and a memory storing a certified database as noted in the preamble of claim 21.
Using one or more processors to communicate with external networks via wired or wireless communication merely amount to instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or processor or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea– see MPEP 2106.05(f), also see applicant's specification for guiding interpretation of these claim features, [0073]-[0075], describing implementation with generic commercially available devices or any machine capable of executing a set of instructions, similarly describing usage of general and special purpose computer and "any kind of digital computer" including generic commercially available devices. The claimed processors and external networks and the database
are similarly understood in light of applicant's specification as mere usage of any arrangement of computer software or hardware intermediate components potentially using networks to communicate between systems (see the applicant’s specification) are properly understood to be mere instructions to apply the abstraction using a computer.
Performance of an “access” step by one or processors amounts to performing steps which amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering – see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Performing generic functions or steps by a generic computer processor hardware with external networks merely limit the abstraction to computer field by execution by generic computers – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), limitations which amount to instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool, limitations which amount to insignificant extra-solution activity, and limitations which amount to generally linking to a particular technological environment do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
While the claims do not specify any particular manner of “access” or “accessing”, “select” or selecting”, “calculate” or “calculating”, and “decide” or “deciding” data, the breadth of the limitations reasonably includes generating an adjudication score and deciding the adjudication of the proposed fact in favor of a subscriber or a claimant.
Reciting the "one or more processors" as claimed is understood to be similar to Alappat, which as noted in MPEP 2106.05(b)(I), is superseded, and the correct analysis is to look whether the added elements integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims in the instant application are performed by one or more generic processors which perform generic function such as accessing data, select data and calculate data and make a decision based on the data.’
Consideration of these steps as a combination does not change the analysis as they do not add anything compared to when the steps are considered separately. The claims recite a particular sequence of deciding an adjudication of a proposed fact in a favor of a subscriber or claimant, and performance of these steps technologically does present a meaningful limit to the scope of the claim which would reasonably integrate the abstraction into a practical application.
Step 2B: The elements discussed above with respect to the practical application in Step 2A, prong 2 are equally applicable to consideration of whether the claims amount to significantly more. Accordingly, the claims fail to recite additional elements which, when considered individually and in combination, amount to significantly more. Reconsideration of these elements identified as insignificant extra-solution activity as part of Step 2B does not change the analysis. Accessing data, selecting, generating and deciding on data by a processor or computer hardware amounts to receiving and processing data over a network has been recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional (See MPEP 106.05(d)(II), citing Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)).
Positively reciting the computer processor and memory storing data or software instructions does not change the analysis as these aspects are properly considered as additional elements which amount to instructions to apply it with a computer.
These claimed elements also as found in the dependent claims are also recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component.
In processing the claims, it is noted that the recitation of these additional elements do not impact the analysis of the claims because these elements in combination are noted only to be a general purpose computer or processor for performing basic or routine computer functions. These claimed elements are noted to a be a generic computer for accessing data similar to collecting data, storing data and performing routine and conventional functions.
These additional elements do not overcome the analysis as these elements are merely considered as additional elements which amount to instructions to be applied to the generic computer.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claimed elements are also seen as generic computer components accessing data, generating data and deciding on data and thus performing generic functions without an inventive concept as they do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claimed additional elements are interpreted as being recited at a high level of generality and even if the claims recited in the affirmative.
The type of data being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or renders the idea less abstract. Looking at the elements as a combination, the elements do not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Applicant is reminded that a statutory claim would recite an automated machine implemented method or system with specific structures for performing the claimed invention so as to provide an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because the claims do not effect an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, claims 21-35 are directed to an abstract idea.
The prior art taken alone or in combination failed to teach or suggest:
“select applicable guidelines among the following guidelines to adjudicate the proposed fact support and the claimant claim support: 1) distance of a proposed fact source and a claimant claim source from an original source, 2) degree of bias present in the proposed fact source and the claimant claim source, 3) expertise of the proposed fact source and the claimant claim source, 4) level of data alteration present in the proposed fact and the claimant claim, 5) number of data points in the proposed fact and the claimant claim, 6) level of completeness in the proposed fact and the claimant claim; (d) calculate an adjudication score for the proposed fact support and the claimant claim support based on a comparison of the proposed fact support and the claimant claim support using the selected applicable guidelines; and (e) decide the adjudication of the proposed fact in favor of the subscriber or the claimant” as recited in independent claim 21.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANTZY POINVIL whose telephone number is (571)272-6797. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 7:00AM to 5:30PM.
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 W, 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/fp/
/FRANTZY POINVIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
October 28, 2025