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 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) “… determine trust scores for a plurality of entities” (claim 2 - mental process: evaluation), “… store the plurality of trust sores for the plurality of entities, a plurality of times wherein each of the plurality of times is associated with at least one of the plurality of trust scores, and entity data for each of the plurality of entities” (claim 2 - mental process: evaluation), “use[ing] a set of first entity data … to determine a first entity trust score …” (claims 2, 8, and 15 - mental process: judgment), “use a first set of entity data for a plurality of entities to determine a plurality of first trust scores …” (claim 2 - mental process: judgment), “determining a plurality of first trust scores…” (claims 8 and 15 - mental process: judgment), “use a second set of entity data for the plurality of entities to determine the plurality second trust scores…” (claim 2 - mental process: judgment), “determining a plurality of second trust scores…” (claims 8 and 15 - mental process: judgment), “receive[ing] a request for an updated first entity trust score…” (claims 2, 8, and 15 - mental process: evaluation), “determine[ing] that the set of first entity data is not sufficiently updated” (claims 2, 8, and 15 - mental process: judgment), “determine[ing] one or more score trends using the plurality of first trust scores and the plurality of second trust scores” (claims 2, 8, and 15 - mental process: judgment), and “determine[ing] the updated first entity trust score by applying the one or more score trends to the first entity trust score” (claims 2, 8, and 15 - mental process: judgment). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not recite any further limitations that either apply, rely on, or utilize the abstract idea in a manner that imposes meaningful limit on the abstract idea itself. For example, there’s no further recitations of an improvement to a computerized function nor an improvement to a specific technology or technical field. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because claims 2, 8, and 15 do not recite any additional limitations that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. For example, claim 2 recites a “system”, “a server”, “one or more data stores”, “the server having memory that stores instructions that when executed by a processor” and claim 15 recites a “non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions…”, which are equivalent to typical components used for storing (and retrieving) information in memory, and thus are recognized as being well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions (Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93). Further, the examiner takes Official Notice that the claimed “system”, “a server”, “one or more data stores”, “the server having memory that stores instructions that when executed by a processor”, and “non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions…” as being well-known and conventional in the computer arts. Thus, the above identified abstract idea recited within claims 2, 8, and 15, when considered individually and in combination with the above recited well-known, conventional components, fails to recite subject matter that would constitute as significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Further, dependent claims 3-7, 9-14, and 16-21 also fail to recite any further limitations that would either recite a non-abstract idea, further integrate the above identified abstract idea into a practical application, or recite anything considered as significantly more, alone or in combination, than the abstract idea itself. Thus, these claims are also rejected for the same reasons as applied to respective claims 2, 8, and 15.
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 2-21 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. The term “sufficiently” in claims 2, 8, and 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “sufficiently” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In other words, the term “sufficiently” when used in conjunction with the surrounding limitations (i.e., “determining that the set of first entity data is not sufficiently updated” is unclear, as it’s not readily identifiable what one having ordinary skill in the art would deem as “sufficient” as it pertains to data being updated.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "… the plurality of second trust scores…" in lines 12-13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2, 8, and 15 recite the limitation "… the one or more score trends …". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 18 and 21 recite the limitation “the instructions” however it’s unclear which “instructions” of claim 15 these limitations refer back to. Specifically, claim 15 recites, in the preamble, “the instructions comprising instructions for” (emphasis added), which makes claims 18 and 21 recitation to “the instructions” indefinite.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
“Faiman” (US 8527760)
“Stoll” (US 2013/0317941)
“Shivakumar” (US 2014/0289261)
“Shull” (US 2006/0212931)
“Dhillon” (US 9390243)
“Vander Mey” (US 7822631)
“Milman” (US 2015/0121456)
“Skelton” (US 2011/0246412)
“Choi” (US 2010/0004940).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL B POTRATZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5329. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10 A.M. - 6 P.M. CST.
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, William Korzuch can be reached on 571-272-7589. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/DANIEL B POTRATZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2491