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 .
Drawings
The drawings filed on 07/13/2024 are accepted by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a pre-processor configured to”, “an analytics unit configured to”, and “a classification model configured to” in claim10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 3 and 12 recites the limitation "the plurality of parameters" in page 1 and 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 USC 101 because the machine readable medium does not specifically exclude signals and needs to be amended to specify that the medium is ‘non-transitory’.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 USC 101. The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because claims 1, 9, and 10 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 2-8 and 11-17 fail to remedy these deficiencies.
The claims 1, 9, and 10 recite receiving a plurality of sample transaction records for the asset; generating a spanning tree representing connections between users in the transaction records; calculating a plurality of metrics relating to the generated spanning tree; and using a classification model to analyze the calculated metrics and assign the asset to first classification which indicates the asset is a suspected pyramid scheme or a second classification which indicates the asset is not a suspected pyramid scheme.
The Claims 1, 9, and 10 recite generating, calculating, analyzing, and assigning steps as drafted, are processes that under broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of managing personal behavior, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a data processing apparatus and a computer-readable medium”, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed by organizing human activity. For example, but for the “a data processing apparatus and a computer-readable medium” in the context of these claims encompasses a person manually generates/draws a spanning tree, calculates a plurality of metrics, and analyzes the calculated metrics to assign the asset to different categories. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by managing personal behavior but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because receiving steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of receiving sample transactions step) and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the concept of receiving, generating, calculating, analyzing, and assigning in a computer environment. The claimed computer components such as the data processing apparatus and the computer-readable medium are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform receiving, generating, calculating, analyzing, and assigning steps. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims 1, 9, and 10 are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims 1, 9, and 10 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using the data processing apparatus and the computer-readable medium to perform receiving, generating, calculating, analyzing, and assigning steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B: NO). The claims 1, 9, and 10 are not patent eligible.
Claims 3-7 and 12-16 disclose insignificant helpful content to further describe content, such as the plurality of specific parameters, a first/second sub-classification, the type of the classification model, blockchain sample transaction records, and the details of each sample transaction record , which are merely descriptive content to further limit the abstract idea but not make it less abstract. Thus, the claims 3-7 and 12-16 are directed to an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because descriptive content in claims 3-7 and 12-16 further limit the abstract idea but not make it less abstract. Thus, the claims 3-7 and 12-16 are directed to an abstract idea.
There are no additional claim element limitations recited in the claims 23-7 and 12-16. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B: NO). The claims 3-7 and 12-16 are not patent eligible.
The claims 2 and 11 recite obtaining sample transaction records for a plurality of cryptocurrency assets, where a subset of the cryptocurrency assets are classified as pyramid schemes; generating a spanning tree for each asset; calculating the plurality metrics for each generated spanning tree; and training the classification model using the calculated metrics as input variables and the classification of each asset as a target variable.
The Claims 2 and 11 recite generating, calculating, and training steps as drafted, are processes that under broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of managing personal behavior, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a data processing apparatus and a computer-readable medium”, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed by organizing human activity. For example, but for the “a data processing apparatus and a computer-readable medium” in the context of these claims encompasses a person manually generates/draws a spanning tree, calculates a plurality of metrics, and trains the classification model. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by managing personal behavior but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because obtaining steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of obtaining sample transactions step) and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the concept of obtaining, generating, calculating, and training in a computer environment. The claimed computer components such as the data processing apparatus and the computer-readable medium are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform obtaining, generating, calculating, and training steps. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims 2 and 11 are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims 2 and 11 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using the data processing apparatus and the computer-readable medium to perform obtaining, generating, calculating, and training steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B: NO). The claims 2 and 11 are not patent eligible.
The claims 8 and 17 recite identifying a plurality of users from the sample transaction records; representing each user as a node of the spanning tree; and mapping connecting edges to represent an aggregated number of transactions between each pair of users over a predefined period of time.
The Claims 8 and 17 recite identifying, representing, and mapping steps as drafted, are processes that under broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of managing personal behavior, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a data processing apparatus and a computer-readable medium”, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed by organizing human activity. For example, but for the “a data processing apparatus and a computer-readable medium” in the context of these claims encompasses a person manually identifies a plurality of users, indicates/represents each use as a node, and mapping connecting edges between each pairs of user over a predefined period of time. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by managing personal behavior but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the concept of identifying, representing, and mapping in a computer environment. The claimed computer components such as the data processing apparatus and the computer-readable medium are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform identifying, representing, and mapping steps. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims 8 and 17 are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims 8 and 17 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using the data processing apparatus and the computer-readable medium to perform identifying, representing, and mapping steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B: NO). The claims 8 and 17 are not patent eligible.
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 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.
Claims 1-3, 5-12, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over International Patent Application No. WO 2022/005913 to Drapeau et al., in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/00283667 to Song et al.
With regard to claims 1, 9, and 10, Drapeau discloses a data processing apparatus for classifying a cryptocurrency asset, comprising:
a pre-processor configured to receive a plurality of sample transaction records for the asset and generate a spanning tree representing connections between users in the transaction records (fig. 4, paragraph 57, Referring to Figure 4, processing logic begins by generating nodes and edges from a data store of prior transaction data, the nodes being transaction attributes (e.g., card number, email address, user ID, cookie ID, etc.), and the edges being undirected and unweighted connections formed when there is an existence of two attributes in a single transaction (processing block 402).);
an analytics unit configured to calculate a plurality of metrics relating to the generated spanning tree (paragraph 57, Furthermore, the nodes are joined by an edge that identifies their concurrence in a transaction. Since concurrence defines the relationship between nodes, the edge need not be directed or weighted. However, in some embodiments, edges may be weighted to enhance an understanding of the underlying relationship between certain nodes in an identity graph and/or to enhance feature generation for fraud detection.); and
a classification model configured to analyze the calculated metrics and assign the asset to first classification which indicates the asset is a suspected pyramid scheme or a second classification which indicates the asset is not a suspected pyramid scheme (paragraphs 58 and 66, Processing logic may then filter out identities having a cluster size above a maximum cluster size threshold (processing block 406). In embodiments, the threshold is configured to retain a majority of the clusters/identities, but filter out identities likely to be associated with improper identities, such as card number thieves. That is, the feature sets, transaction data, and fraud determinations form training/retraining data from which ML models (e.g. tree-based, neural network based, regression based, etc.) can be trained to detect fraud using identity based features. ).
However, Drapeau does not disclose the transactions are cryptocurrency asset transactions.
However, Song teaches the display device is a kitchen display with a touch screen panel (It is an object of the present disclosure to provide a two-tier token system with freely tradeable tokens, in which the supply of tokens is based on physical produced assets, paragraph 15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Drapeau to include, the display device is a kitchen display with a touch screen panel, as taught in Song, in order to provide a decentralized, transparent, and secure platform for storing, managing, and exchanging digital information (Song, paragraph 8).
With regard to claims 2 and 11, Drapeau discloses the classification model is trained by: obtaining sample transaction records for a plurality of cryptocurrency assets, where a subset of the cryptocurrency assets are classified as pyramid schemes (paragraph 57); generating a spanning tree for each asset (paragraph 57); calculating the plurality metrics for each generated spanning tree (paragraph 57); and training the classification model using the calculated metrics as input variables and the classification of each asset as a target variable (paragraphs 66-67, processing block 502-512 are re-performed periodically to retrain and refine fraud detection ML models as new training data becomes available, new identity based features are used, or a combination.).
With regard to claims 3 and 12, the combination of references discloses the plurality of parameters includes at least one parameter relating to the levels of distribution (Song, paragraph 100, Each respective produced asset is associated with a respective asset information. In one or more embodiments, the respective asset information for a given asset producing entity 802 includes type, quantity, location, quality, condition, ownership, and production capacity.), at least one parameter relating to the proximity of users in the transaction records (Song, paragraph 100, Each respective produced asset is associated with a respective asset information. In one or more embodiments, the respective asset information for a given asset producing entity 802 includes type, quantity, location, quality, condition, ownership, and production capacity.), and at least one parameter relating to the expansion rate of a distribution network for the asset (Song, paragraph 24, an asset production increase parameter).
With regard to claims 5 and 14, Drapeau discloses the classification model is a logistic regression model, decision tree model, support vector machine or XGBoost model (paragraph 23, one or more machine learning models, such as neural network based models, tree based models, support vector machine models, classification based models, regression based models, etc).
With regard to claims 6 and 15, the combination of references discloses the plurality of sample transaction records are extracted from a blockchain on which the asset operates (Song, paragraphs 94-95, The respective wallet may have built-in smart contract functionality, which enables the creation and execution of complex programmable transactions.).
With regard to claims 7 and 16, Drapeau discloses each sample transaction record includes a source, target, amount and time for an associated transaction (paragraphs 23 and 26, attributes associated with a transaction, such as card number used in a transaction, email address used in the transaction, dollar amount of a transaction, etc.,. The transaction data stores a vast corpus of transaction attribute information (on the order of millions to billions or more of past transactions), such as card numbers used in transactions, email addresses used in transaction, commerce platform user identifiers associated with transactions, tracking cookie identifiers detected during transactions, etc.).
With regard to claims 8 and 17, Drapeau discloses the sample transaction records are mapped onto the spanning tree by: identifying a plurality of users from the sample transaction records (fig. 4, paragraph 59); representing each user as a node of the spanning tree (fig. 4, paragraph 59); and mapping connecting edges to represent an aggregated number of transactions between each pair of users over a predefined period of time (fig. 4, paragraph 59, After the identities are built, processing logic may periodically update the identities (e.g. augment existing identities based on new transaction and/or create new identity graphs). Thus, processing logic generates new nodes and/or edges from a store of a period of transaction data (processing block 410), such as a day, week, month, etc. of transaction data. Because there are far fewer generated node/edge subgraphs generated at processing block 410 (e.g. generated for an update period) when compared to processing block 402 (e.g., generated for all prior transactions), processing logic utilizes a different technique and processing method to update the identity graphs in the data store.).
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over International Patent Application No. WO 2022/005913 to Drapeau et al., in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/00283667 to Song et al., and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0188702 to Bolla.
With regard to claims 4 and 13, the combination of references does not disclose the claimed invention, however, the combination of references disclose the first classification includes a first sub-classification which indicates the asset is a real multi-level distribution and a second sub-classification which indicates the asset is a reference and reward scheme.
However, Bolla teaches the first classification includes a first sub-classification which indicates the asset is a real multi-level distribution and a second sub-classification which indicates the asset is a reference and reward scheme ( A website's content can be assessed relative to different AUP categories. A machine learning classifier can also assess AUP content category scores (which may be done on a confidence scale such as 0 to 100). The audit record can include scores and/or ratings for a variety of content categories. Such categories can include, in various embodiments items that (2) relate to transactions involving (b) support pyramid or ponzi schemes, matrix programs, other “get rich quick” schemes or certain multi-level marketing programs, paragraphs 11 and 30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of references to include, the first classification includes a first sub-classification which indicates the asset is a real multi-level distribution and a second sub-classification which indicates the asset is a reference and reward scheme, as taught in Song, in order to facilitate consensus content evaluation via secure and uniquely identifiable audit records relating to website content classification (Bolla, paragraph 1).
Conclusion
Please refer to form 892 for cited references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARIEL J YU whose telephone number is (571)270-3312. The examiner can normally be reached 11AM - 7PM (M-F).
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, Obeid Fahd A can be reached on 571-270-3324. 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.
/ARIEL J YU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights