DETAILED ACTION
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to the application filed on 09/16/2024 and the Preliminary Amendment filed on 09/10/2025.
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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-18 are canceled.
Claims 22-38 are added.
Claims 19-39 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 19-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 19 recites “receiving, via first one or more communication networks and from a first client device, one or more messages indicating a commodity … ”, “transmitting, via second one or more communication networks, and to a plurality of second client devices … ”, “transmitting, via third one or more communication networks and to a validator device associated with a validator … ” and “instructing, via fourth one or more communication networks and one of a plurality of escrow servers, to release funds held in escrow”. The Original Disclosure does not support four specific groups of communication network connecting the first client device, second client devices and validator. The Specification, particularly paragraph 44 and Figure 1, discloses only a “communication network 30” as a network connecting the buyer (first client) device, seller (second clients) device, validator device and escrow device, without distinguishing specific groups of communication network for each devices.
Claims 20 and 21 are rejected based on written description support deficiency similar to that of claim 19.
Claims 22, 28 and 34 recite “instructing, via fifth one or more communication networks and to one of the plurality of escrow servers to release the funds … ”. No support is found in the Original Disclosure regarding fifth one or more communication network.
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 19-38 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 “true evaluation” in claims 19, 20 and 21 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “true” 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.
The term “original condition” in claims 19, 20 and 21 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “original” 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.
The term “original evaluation” in claims 19, 20 and 21 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “original” 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.
The term “exact with minor variance” in claims 27 and 33 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “minor” 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.
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 19-39 are 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.
As an initial matter, the claims as a whole are to a process, a manufacture and an apparatus, which falls within one or more statutory categories. (Step 1: YES) The recitation of the claimed invention is then further analyzed as follow, in which the abstract elements are boldfaced.
Claim 1 recites:
A method for generating and validating a crowdsourced condition report of a commodity, the method implemented by a management system and comprising:
receiving, via first one or more communication networks and from a first client device, one or more messages indicating a commodity, a plurality of original conditions to evaluate the commodity, and an original evaluation of each of the plurality of original conditions;
generating a first graphical user interface (GUI) indicating the commodity, the plurality of original conditions, and the original evaluation for each of the plurality of original conditions;
transmitting, via second one or more communication networks, and to a plurality of second client devices, the first GUI for display on the plurality of second client devices;
generating an aggregated list of conditions to evaluate the commodity, wherein the aggregated list comprises the plurality of original conditions and at least one additional condition to evaluate the commodity received from one or more of the plurality of second client devices via the second one or more communication networks;
transmitting, via third one or more communication networks and to a validator device associated with a validator, the aggregated list of conditions in response to a selection of the validator from a validated network of condition reporters, wherein the selection is received from one of the plurality of second client devices via the second one or more communication networks;
determining, based on data indicative of true evaluations of the commodity and received from the validator device via the third one or more communication networks, a true evaluation of each of the conditions of the aggregated list of conditions;
comparing, for each of the conditions of the aggregated list of conditions, the original evaluation and the true evaluation; and
instructing, via fourth one or more communication networks and one of a plurality of escrow servers, to release funds held in escrow to a first user associated with the first client device when the comparison indicates that the original evaluation and the true evaluation are validated for each of the conditions of the aggregated list of conditions.
Claim 20 recites:
A non-transitory machine readable medium having stored thereon instructions comprising machine executable code which when executed by at least one machine causes the machine to:
receive, via first one or more communication networks and from a first client device, one or more messages indicating a commodity, a plurality of original conditions to evaluate the commodity, and an original evaluation of each of the plurality of original conditions;
generate a first graphical user interface (GUI) indicating the commodity, the plurality of original conditions, and the original evaluation for each of the plurality of original conditions;
transmit, via second one or more communication networks, and to a plurality of second client devices, the first GUI for display on the plurality of second client devices;
generate an aggregated list of conditions to evaluate the commodity, wherein the aggregated list comprises the plurality of original conditions and at least one additional condition to evaluate the commodity received from one or more of the plurality of second client devices via the second one or more communication networks;
transmit, via third one or more communication networks and to a validator device associated with a validator, the aggregated list of conditions in response to a selection of the validator from a validated network of condition reporters, wherein the selection is received from one of the plurality of second client devices via the second one or more communication networks;
determine, based on data indicative of true evaluations of the commodity and received from the validator device via the third one or more communication networks, a true evaluation of each of the conditions of the aggregated list of conditions;
compare, for each of the conditions of the aggregated list of conditions, the original evaluation and the true evaluation; and
instruct, via fourth one or more communication networks and one of a plurality of escrow servers, to release funds held in escrow to a first user associated with the first client device when the comparison indicates that the original evaluation and the true evaluation are validated for each of the conditions of the aggregated list of conditions.
Claim 21 recites:
A management system, comprising a memory comprising programmed instructions stored in the memory and one or more processors configured to be capable of executing the programmed instructions stored in the memory to:
receive, via first one or more communication networks and from a first client device, one or more messages indicating a commodity, a plurality of original conditions to evaluate the commodity, and an original evaluation of each of the plurality of original conditions;
generate a first graphical user interface (GUI) indicating the commodity, the plurality of original conditions, and the original evaluation for each of the plurality of original conditions;
transmit, via second one or more communication networks, and to a plurality of second client devices, the first GUI for display on the plurality of second client devices;
generate an aggregated list of conditions to evaluate the commodity, wherein the aggregated list comprises the plurality of original conditions and at least one additional condition to evaluate the commodity received from one or more of the plurality of second client devices via the second one or more communication networks;
transmit, via third one or more communication networks and to a validator device associated with a validator, the aggregated list of conditions in response to a selection of the validator from a validated network of condition reporters, wherein the selection is received from one of the plurality of second client devices via the second one or more communication networks;
determine, based on data indicative of true evaluations of the commodity and received from the validator device via the third one or more communication networks, a true evaluation of each of the conditions of the aggregated list of conditions;
compare, for each of the conditions of the aggregated list of conditions, the original evaluation and the true evaluation; and
instruct, via fourth one or more communication networks and one of a plurality of escrow servers, to release funds held in escrow to a first user associated with the first client device when the comparison indicates that the original evaluation and the true evaluation are validated for each of the conditions of the aggregated list of conditions.
Claims 22, 28 and 34 recite:
instructing, via fifth one or more communication networks and to one of the plurality of escrow servers to release the funds held in escrow to a second user associated with the second client device when the comparison indicates that the original evaluation and the true evaluation are not validated for each of the conditions of the aggregated list of conditions.
Claims 23, 29 and 35 recite:
wherein the data indicative of true evaluations of the commodity comprises one or more of the validator's evaluation, an image of the commodity, a receipt of repair work of the commodity, a receipt for a replacement part for the commodity, and or a report documenting an accident involving the commodity.
Claims 24, 30 and 36 recite:
wherein the data indicative of true evaluations of the commodity comprises a digital image of the commodity taken by the validator device.
Claims 25, 31 and 37 recite:
wherein determining the true evaluation of each of the conditions of the aggregated list of conditions comprises: removing one or more of noise and an object of non-interest from the digital image.
Claims 26, 32 and 38 recite:
wherein determining the true evaluation of each of the conditions of the aggregated list of conditions comprises: analyzing the data using artificial intelligence.
Claims 27 and 33 recite:
wherein the comparison yields a result of one or more of exact, exact with minor variance, and condition validator judgement
Based on the limitations above, the claims describe a process that covers facilitating an escrow transaction. Facilitating an escrow transaction is considered to be a commercial interaction, which falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. As such, the claim(s) recite(s) a Judicial Exception. (Step 2A prong one: Yes)
This analysis then evaluates whether the claims as a whole integrates the recited Judicial Exception into a practical application of the exception. In particular, the claims recite the additional element(s) of “method implemented by a … system”, “A non-transitory machine readable medium having stored thereon instructions comprising machine executable code which when executed by at least one machine causes the machine to” and “a … system, comprising a memory comprising programmed instructions stored in the memory and one or more processors configured to be capable of executing the programmed instructions stored in the memory to” as a mere tool to perform the steps of the Judicial Exception, which encompasses no more than Mere Instruction to Apply.
For example, the limitation “receiving, via first one or more communication networks and from a first client device, one or more messages indicating a commodity, a plurality of original conditions to evaluate the commodity, and an original evaluation of each of the plurality of original conditions” encompasses no more than generically invoking a computing system to apply the Judicial Exception step of receiving the one or messages indicating a commodity, a plurality of original conditions and an original evaluation from the first client;
the limitation “generating a first graphical user interface (GUI) indicating the commodity, the plurality of original conditions, and the original evaluation for each of the plurality of original conditions” encompasses no more than generically invoking a computing system to apply the Judicial Exception step of providing information indicating the commodity, the plurality of original conditions and the original evaluation;
the limitation “transmitting, via second one or more communication networks, and to a plurality of second client devices, the first GUI for display on the plurality of second client devices” encompasses no more than generically invoking a computing system to apply the Judicial Exception step of transmitting the information to the a plurality of second clients;
the limitation “generating an aggregated list of conditions to evaluate the commodity, wherein the aggregated list comprises the plurality of original conditions and at least one additional condition to evaluate the commodity received from one or more of the plurality of second client devices via the second one or more communication networks” encompasses no more than generically invoking a computing system to apply the Judicial Exception step of generating an aggregated list of conditions to evaluate the commodity;
the limitation “transmitting, via third one or more communication networks and to a validator device associated with a validator, the aggregated list of conditions in response to a selection of the validator from a validated network of condition reporters, wherein the selection is received from one of the plurality of second client devices via the second one or more communication networks” encompasses no more than generically invoking a computing system to apply the Judicial Exception step of transmitting the aggregated list of conditions to a validator selected by the second clients;
the limitation “determining, based on data indicative of true evaluations of the commodity and received from the validator device via the third one or more communication networks, a true evaluation of each of the conditions of the aggregated list of conditions” encompasses no more than generically invoking a computing system to apply the Judicial Exception step of determining a true evaluation of each conditions of the aggregated list of conditions;
the limitation “comparing, for each of the conditions of the aggregated list of conditions, the original evaluation and the true evaluation” encompasses no more than generically invoking a computing system to apply the Judicial Exception step of comparing the original evaluation to the true evaluation for each of the conditions of the aggregated list;
the limitation “instructing, via fourth one or more communication networks and one of a plurality of escrow servers, to release funds held in escrow to a first user associated with the first client device when the comparison indicates that the original evaluation and the true evaluation are validated for each of the conditions of the aggregated list of conditions” encompasses no more than generically invoking a computing system to apply the Judicial Exception step of instructing one of a plurality of escrow to release funds to the first user when comparison indicates the original evaluation and the true evaluation are validated;
the limitation “instructing, via fifth one or more communication networks and to one of the plurality of escrow servers to release the funds held in escrow to a second user associated with the second client device when the comparison indicates that the original evaluation and the true evaluation are not validated for each of the conditions of the aggregated list of conditions” encompasses no more than generically invoking a computing system to apply the Judicial Exception step of instructing one of the plurality of escrow to release funds to the second user when comparison indicates the original evaluation and the true evaluation are not validated;
the limitation “wherein determining the true evaluation of each of the conditions of the aggregated list of conditions comprises: removing one or more of noise and an object of non-interest from the digital image” encompasses no more than generically invoking a computing system to apply the Judicial Exception step of removing noise and non-interest object from the image;
the limitation “wherein determining the true evaluation of each of the conditions of the aggregated list of conditions comprises: analyzing the data using artificial intelligence” encompasses no more than generically invoking a computing system to apply the Judicial Exception step of analyzing data;
Other than being generally linked to the steps of the Judicial Exception, the additional elements in the above step(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality, without technological detail of how the particular steps are performed technologically.
The additional element(s) of “memory” and/or “non-transitory storage medium” are generically recited to store data and/or instructions of the Judicial Exception.
The additional element(s) of “one or more communication networks” are generically recited to perform communication steps such as receiving and transmitting.
The additional element(s) of “graphical user interface” are generically recited to perform output steps, such indicating and displaying, described only by a result-oriented solution with insufficient detail for how the steps are accomplished.
The additional element(s) of “artificial intelligence” are generically recited to perform analyzing steps described only by a result-oriented solution with insufficient detail for how the step is accomplished.
The examiner further noted generic computer affixes such as “digital” or “device associated with” are appended to abstract elements such as “image”, “user”, “validator” and “escrow”, but found that to be mere instructions to implement the Judicial Exception idea on a computer.
Indeed, the instant claims (1) attempted to cover a solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result; (2) used of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks or simply added a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to the Judicial Exception and (3) generally applied the Judicial Exception to a generic computing environment without limitation indicative of practical application (See MPEP 2106.04(d)I). Thus, the claims are no more than Mere Instruction to Apply the Judicial Exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05(g)), which do not integrate the cited Judicial Exception into practical application (Step 2A prong two: No) The claims are directed to a Judicial Exception.
The claim does 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 element of using a computer system to facilitate escrow transaction amounts 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. Dependent claim 23, 24, 27, 29, 30, 33, 35 and 36 merely limit the abstract idea but do not recite any additional element beyond the cited abstract idea, thus, do not amount to significantly more. No additional element currently recited in the claims amount the claims to be significantly more than the cited abstract idea. (Step 2B: No)
Therefore, claims 19-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fisher (US 2019/0172128)
Valenti et al. (US 2019/0102752)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHO KWONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7955. The examiner can normally be reached 9am - 5pm EST 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, MICHAEL W 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.
/CHO YIU KWONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693