AIA
Claims 1-20 filed 11/27/2027 examined. Dependents of rejected claims are apriori rejected.
PNG
media_image1.png
29
681
media_image1.png
Greyscale
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
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 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.
Generic placeholders, e.g., unit, procedure, procedure (respectively claim 1, 6, 7) invoke 112f.
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 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.
Step 1: (MPEP 2106.03)
The Claims are directed to statutory classes (1 machine 6 process, 7 manufacture). The claims herein are directed to subject matter which would be classified under one of the listed statutory classifications (i.e., 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter “PEG”) “PEG” Step 1=Yes).
Step 2A, Prong One: Evaluating whether the claim(s) recite(s) a judicial exception -- law of nature, natural phenomenon, abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.04).
Claim 1 (6 process and 7 manufacture versions of claim 1)
1. (Original) A terminal to be used by each of a plurality of participants participating in a predetermined platform, the terminal comprising:
O a secure calculation [unit] that executes predetermined incentive processing according to content of an evaluation X by secure multi-party computation with another [terminal connected via a communication network] using a fragment [x] of the evaluation X for an evaluation target.
bold idea [ additional element ]
MATH
CERTAIN METHODS OF ORGANIZING HUMAN ACTIVITY
Alice clearinghouse via computer
Bilski trading via computer
Here calculate opinion via network via computer
Trinity Info v Covalent (CAFC 2007) survey opinion via network via computer
The claims calculate incentive based on opinion, aka evaluation/review. Applicant is calculating an intangible. The claim automates human behavior (asking people what their opinion is about some target subject ie gathering fragments of data and here instead of a human speaking or gesture or writing, now a human uses a terminal).
These claim elements are considered to be abstract ideas because they are directed to a method of organizing human activity thru rewards for product recommendations.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional element – reciting ‘processor’ ‘server’ ‘database’, to perform the claim steps. The elements are recited at a high-level of generality (e.g. generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for lack of any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The additional elements present only a particular technological environment.
The dependent claims add steps which are part of, not apart from, the idea of organizing human activity. Rather, these claims offer further descriptive limitations of elements found in the independent claims and addressed above – such as by describing the nature and content of the data that is received/sent. While these descriptive elements may provide further helpful context for the claimed invention these elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance does not outweigh abstract concepts of the claimed invention.
It is readily apparent, for example, that the claim is not directed to any specific improvements of these elements. Applicant specification make it clear that Applicant did not mean to limit the invention to the disclosed technical environment and that the descriptions and features are general.
Collect info, analyze it, display certain results. Electric Power Group (CAFC 2016)
18869943
188869943
EPG
O a secure calculation [unit] that executes predetermined incentive processing according to content of an evaluation X by secure multi-party computation with another [terminal connected via a communication network] using a fragment [x] of the evaluation X for an evaluation target.
PNG
media_image2.png
161
482
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Collect
info,
analyze
it,
display
certain
results
Dependent claims 2-5, 8-20 are the data gathering and idea itself.
Dependents of rejected claims are apriori rejected.
STEP 2b
Second, the additional element(s) or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se amount(s) to no more than: unit, terminal, network.
Viewed as a whole, the additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim limitations do not improve upon the technical field that the abstract idea is applied nor do they improve upon any other technical field. The claimed limitations do not improve upon the functioning of the computer itself.
The claims do not claim more than an idea implemented on a computer. The claim steps are determining by computer based system, monitoring by computer based system, updating by computer based system, transmitting by computer based system, adjusting by computer based system.
The additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not provide improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, and do not provide meaningful limitations beyond generic linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Additionally, the claims are directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements that do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because they require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions and generic activities previously known to the industry. The limitations (those beyond the abstract idea) do not improve the technical field that the abstract idea limitations invoke.
Whereas a reward program could be done mentally, but applicant applies the idea in a particular technological environment. Applicant’s is automating mental steps.
Moreover, these generic limitations processor, server, database platform do not constitute significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, not meaningful limitations beyond generic linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See Alice Corp p 16 of slip op. noting that none of the hardware recited "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking ‘the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment', that is implementation via computers" (citing Bilski 561 US at 610).
Applicant did not invent the additional elements nor does applicant improve any of those or improve any other technical field. “Stating an abstract idea “while adding the words ‘apply it’” is not enough for patent eligibility. Mayo, supra, at ___, 132 S. Ct. 1289, 182 L. Ed. 2d 321, 325. Nor is limiting the use of an abstract idea “‘to a particular technological environment.’” Bilski, supra, at 610‐611, 130 S. Ct. 3218, 177 L. Ed. 2d 792. Stating an abstract idea while adding the words “apply it with a computer” simply combines those two steps, with the same deficient result.” Applicant adds the words processor, server, database platform.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements merely detail generic computer processors and software that implement the abstract idea. The generically recited elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be in any computer implementation. The additional element merely instruct that the execution of the abreact idea occurs on other generic technology, but does not offer any disclosure of any additional technology beyond the abstract idea itself. Moreover, the claim steps as an ordered combination do not present significantly more. The claims are not directed to an improvement in computer functionality like in Enfish v Microsoft, but rather to an abstract idea. The claims "do nothing more than spell out what it means to 'apply it on a computer'”, Intellectual Ventures I 792 F.3d p1371 (citing Alice). Nowhere in the claims or specification is there any indication as to that which is alleged to be significantly more does something ungeneric such that Applicant has improved computer functionality.
Claims dependent from the independent claims do not cure the deficiencies and are rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
35 U.S.C. 103:
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.
MPEP 2123: “The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for ALL they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 1983) A reference may be relied upon for ALL that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989).”
Claims 1 6 7 are rejected as obvious over Liu (NPL) in view of Balamurugan US 20140067451
CLAIM 1 6 7
1. (Original) A terminal to be used by each of a plurality of participants participating in a predetermined platform, the terminal comprising:
O a secure calculation unit that executes predetermined incentive processing according to content of an evaluation X by secure multi-party computation with another terminal connected via a communication network using a fragment [x] of the evaluation X for an evaluation target.
“Secure Reputation System based on SMC” IEEE 2009 International Conference on Communications and Mobile Computing authored by Liu YanBin (Year: 2009)
NOT EXPLICIT IN Liu is fragment, but p579 column 1 ¶ 2.
Claimed fragment ≈ Liu’s share
Although Liu has “incentive … discount … discount …” p. 581
NOT EXPLICIT IN Liu is predetermined incentive processing but see
“Hybrid MultiIterative CrowdSourcing” by Balamurugan Fig 3 + text
Liu is predicated on feedback. That feedback comes from providers, humans. It would have been obvious looking at Liu’s Reputation SMC to consult the works of colleagues in analogous art and find Balamurugan and combine the two for the advantage of flexible incentive. This is simply Design Incentives or Market Forces Prompting Variations KSR v Teleflex (SCOTUS 2007). Conversely, without the combination’s dynamic incentives (Balamurugan), there’s no incentive for feedback providers to provide Liu’s feedback.
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Although claims 2-5 8-20 are not rejected under 103 they nevertheless are rejected under 101. They are dependent from rejected claims and are apriori rejected. They are thus not allowable and unpatentable.
Point of contact
Pertinent prior art
US-20170278085-A1 Anderson, Christian
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BREFFNI X BAGGOT whose telephone number is (571)272-7154. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a-10a, 12p-6p.
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, Waseem Ashraf can be reached at 571-270-3948. 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.
BREFFNI BAGGOT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3621
/BREFFNI BAGGOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621
Prosecution Insights