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 .
Status of Claims
This Office action is in response to correspondence received August 14, 2026.
Claims 1, 9, and 16 are amended. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
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 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):
Claims 1, 9, and 16 which are similar in scope:
aggregate data elements from a first plurality of sources, wherein each data element comprises a text string; present, each data element of a first plurality of data elements associated with the first plurality of sources; solicit, for each data element of the first plurality of data elements feedback corresponding to a perceived veracity of contents of each data element; process, using a combination function, a second plurality of data elements extracted from the first plurality of data elements, wherein the combination function induces a probability distribution over a set of possible worlds that satisfy a set of integrity constraints and computes a top-k set of most likely possible worlds by solving a set of linear constraints; generate, based on the top-k set of most likely possible worlds, a trust score associated with the second plurality of data elements; and communicate the trust score.
This is an abstract idea of a mental process and a mathematical relationship because data elements that are witness statements or text strings (like a word, phrase, sentence, etc) are aggregated, and one could do that by observation of text strings. Then, feedback is solicited for each one, for example from a person (can you please tell me what you think?) to a perceived veracity of the contents of the data element ( is this truthful to you?), then a second plurality of elements is extracted which is a mental process of judgment taking 1 to n, n being the most number of elements, from a text string, and then a trust score is generated form the second plurality of elements. Finally a trust score is generated from the second plurality of elements which is a mental process of judgement (assigning 1 to something truthful, 0 to something untruthful, and adding those numbers together to divide by the total amount of things). The limitations of using a combination function, and further defining it, are a mathematical relationship, also an abstract idea. This is because they are describing computing a probability distribution, which is an (often) large number that is composed of discrete elements that can be understood as a graph, usually a bell shaped curve. Finally communicating the trust score is something that can be done on pen and paper.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements alone and in combination are computers or other ordinary machinery which are applied to the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). The additional elements are:
Claim 1:
A computing platform comprising: a processor; And a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the computing platform to:
via a/the user interface,
Claim 9:
via a/the user interface,
Claim 16:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause a computing platform to:
Via a/the user interface
The user interface is a computer/keyboard or similar smartphone interface that is found on generic computers. The combination of elements amounts to running a computer program and applying a combination function on the computer, and also taking and presenting information on the computer. Therefore the additional elements are apply it and are not a practical application of the abstract idea.
In the alternative, the combination function is rejected as an off the shelf tool applied to perform the mathematical relationship claimed. See Par 066, “These solutions can be found by using an off the shelf linear program solving tool such as…”
Examiner asserts that using an off the shelf tool, here in its ordinary capacity, is an apply it limitation both alone, in combination, and considering the claims as a whole. Therefore if the combination function is considered an additional element it is apply it and is not a practical application.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the reasoning in prong 2 (is there a practical application?) is carried over. Because the combination of additional elements is apply it, they are not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 2-8, 10-15, and 17-20 are rejected because they either further describe the abstract idea or recite additional elements that are applied.
Claims 2, 10, and 17 recite further abstract idea elements, returning sample solutions which one could do with pen and paper, or in the alternative is a mathematical relationship, and the combination function is further applied.
Claims 3, 11, and 18 are similar to 2, 10, and 17 in that there is a computation recited which is mathematical relationship, further describing the combination function, a mathematical relationship as described in the independent claims.
Claims 4, 12, and 19 is an apply it element where the combination function is further defined (yet applied in the independent claims).
Claims 5, 13, and 20 further define the abstract idea with steps of performing independent and iterative steps, and applying the combination function(“by the combination function”).
Claims 6 and 14 recite a further abstract idea element that the veracity value isa assigned.
Claims 7 and 15 recite further abstract idea element of integrity constraints.
Claim 8 recites a further abstract idea element that these statements are witness statements.
Therefore claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101.
Response to Remarks:
Applicant argues essentially that the further limitation of the combination function with the example in the specification of 2^100 makes a very large number. This is correct. However, there is no legal or guidance support for finding eligibility where math could result in a very large number. Taken another way, 2^100 is the result of basic probability theory, which, though large, is a mathematical relationship, which has guidance support for being a patent ineligible abstract idea. See Mathematical Relationships, MPEP 2106.04. With respect, this is merely stating that this is the total number of combinations of 100 different binary choices where order matters. One begins with one binary choice, there are two possible outcomes, 0 or 1, 2^1. Then two choices, now there are 2x2 possible outcomes 00, 11, 01, 10, 2^2. Three choices: 2x2x2 outcomes, which is 2^3, 000, 001, 010, 100, 110, 101, 011, 111. And so forth. 2^100 is a very large number but is an established mathematical concept, following first principles illustrated by Examiner above, and therefore patent ineligible subject matter. Further, and with respect, Applicant is reciting a probability distribution which, even for very large numbers, can be found through integral calculus without counting from 1 and ending at [insert number here], so that not every single 2^100 value is found but rather the distribution of most likely to least likely values, resembling a bell curve, can be found. These are concepts found in statistical mechanics and other applied math in physics. See law of large numbers. See Boltzmann distribution. Further Applicant has claimed constraints similar to boundary conditions which only compute the top-k set, so one could figure out what the top-k is and only compute that amount.
Examiner notes, though it really does not matter, that though the example number in the spec is n = 100, this is not claimed in the claims. So, a toy solution would read on the claims, n = 3 and so forth, and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims in light of the specification is also used for 101 eligibility. Examiner also repeats and goes further that there is a top k set of most likely worlds being determined which satisfy constraints and therefore unlikely that brute force computing (akin to Applicant’s pen and paper example) is being used to find this subset of 2^n elements that satisfies the constraints and results in the smaller top k subset of the set. The scope is not limited to the inelegant solution suggested in the arguments. Pen and paper could actually be used to figure it out.
The combination of elements is, except for the applied computer elements, a combination of mental process and mathematical relationship. This is not only permitted under the guidance but Examiner is following guidance:
See MPEP 2106.04(a):
Examiners should determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea by (1) identifying the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea, and (2) determining whether the identified limitations(s) fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas listed above. The groupings of abstract ideas, and their relationship to the body of judicial precedent, are further discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
Performing this step is a mathematical calculation as Applicant has used the word “compute” which has the scope of “calculate” in that a calculation is being performed. This is therefore at least a mathematical relationship or a mathematical calculation, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(A, C): see also under C, performing a resampled statistical analysis to generate a resampled distribution, SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163-65, 127 USPQ2d 1597, 1598-1600 (Fed. Cir. 2018), modifying SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 890 F.3d 1016, 126 USPQ2d 1638 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
The combination function was previously considered an additional element, and in the alternative is still considered to be one. The scope of the claims is not limited by Attorney argument and the specification, but even given the argument, Applicant’s arguments show that the function, as additional element is an apply it element to the abstract idea. As Applicant notes, the additional element claimed to be a practical application is an off the shelf element, see par 66. This means that the algorithm is taken as is and used in its ordinary capacity to get the expected result from it. Therefore, it is an apply it element. Then Applicant argues that the computer is better off by not making the computer do something worse off. This is an argument wherein Applicant posits doing something inefficient with a computer then using a tool that solves the self-made problem that one ordinarily skilled would not do (one ordinarily skilled in computational physics, statistics, etc). It is not persuasive because the use of the known tools in their ordinary capacity, the off the shelf ones, shows that someone else already figured this out. This is the equivalent of trying to argue an improvement by using a computer generally to speed calculations wherein the computer provides the increased speed, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), FairWarning. Here it is not a computer but a known algorithmic tool and a computer together (the use of the algorithmic tool presumes the computer). For these reasons and based on this guidance this is unpersuasive.
Applicant then states that there is no significantly more finding. This is not the case, see above, and Examiner followed the guidance in carrying over the finding:
MPEP 2106.05(II):Although the conclusion of whether a claim is eligible at Step 2B requires that all relevant considerations be evaluated, most of these considerations were already evaluated in Step 2A Prong Two. Thus, in Step 2B, examiners should:
• Carry over their identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two;
• Carry over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) - (c), (e) (f) and (h).
• Re-evaluate any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP § 2106.05(g), because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant; and
• Evaluate whether any additional element or combination of elements are other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, per MPEP § 2106.05(d).
It is noted that combinations of additional elements that are apply it are both not a practical application and not significantly more. So, hence the guidance in carrying over the conclusions.
In conclusion, Applicant’s arguments were carefully considered but were found unpersuasive.
Prior Art Considered Relevant
The following prior art is considered relevant to Applicant’s disclosure:
Smith et al., US PGPUB 20200126116 A1, teaches in pars 36 and 45 determining the veracity of a statement based on comparison with repositories. Smith does not teach using top k worlds to determine this. Therefore Smith does not teach all the limitations of Applicant’s claims.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 RICHARD W. CRANDALL whose telephone number is (313)446-6562. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at (571) 270-3614. 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.
/RICHARD W. CRANDALL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights