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 September 30, 2024.
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):
Claim 1:
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; soliciting, for each data element of the first plurality of data elements , feedback corresponding to a perceived veracity of contents of each data element; processing, a second plurality of data elements extracted from the first plurality of data elements; generating, a trust score associated with the second plurality of data elements; and communicating, the trust score.
Claim 9:
A method comprising: aggregating witness statements from a first plurality of sources; presenting, each witness statement of a first plurality of witness statements; soliciting, for each witness statement of a first plurality of witness statements and feedback corresponding to a perceived veracity of each witness statement; processing, a second plurality of witness statements of the first plurality of witness statements; generating, a trust score associated with the second plurality of witness statements; and communicating, the trust score.
Claim 16:
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; soliciting, for each data element of the first plurality of data elements , feedback corresponding to a perceived veracity of contents of each data element; processing, a second plurality of data elements extracted from the first plurality of data elements; generating, a trust score associated with the second plurality of data elements; and. communicating, the trust score.
This is an abstract idea of a mental process 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). 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 user interface
using a combination function,
Claim 9:
via the user interface,
using a combination function,
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,
using a combination function,
The user interface is a computer/keyboard or similar smartphone interface that is found on generic computers. Processor/non-transitory CRM likewise in a The combination function is being “used” which is equivalent to applying a combination function. 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.
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, and reciting the additional element of the combination function.
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.
Prior Art Considered Relevant
The following prior art is considered relevant to Applicant’s disclosure:
Yin et al., “Truth Discovery with Multiple Conflicting Information Providers on the Web,” IEEE Vol 20 No 6, June 2008, available at: < https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4415269 >
Yin teaches using iterative computation between websites (sources) and facts (elements of a website) to determine a trust score. See page 4 of the PDF:
Page 4: In order to facilitate computation and veracity exploration, we use a logarithm and define the trustworthiness score of a website as see equation on page 4.
However Yin does not teach a user interface nor does Yin teach “processing, using a combination function, a second plurality of data elements extracted from the first plurality of data elements.” Therefore Yin does not teach all the limitations of Applicant’s independent claims.
Subrahmanian et al., US PGPUB 20100023311 A1, “System And Method For Analysis Of An Opinion Expressed In Documents With Regard To A Particular Topic”
Teaches in par 0117 scoring opinions from very negative to very positive. This concerns the topic “t” in the set of documents “D”. The documents teach sources. In par 0129 individuals assign a harshness score to each document which teaches feedback. The feedback is combined in par 0130. Words and phrases are scored according to algorithmic techniques in par 0131. These teach elements extracted.
However, Subrahmanian does not teach generating, a trust score associated with the second plurality of data elements because the score generated, for one, is an opinion score and not a trustworthiness score. See par 0203: “Returning to FIG. 2, the opinion analysis system 10 of the present invention, in addition to the Quantitative Opinion Analysis Module 28, includes a Qualitative Opinion Analysis Module 30 to provide a qualitative score reflecting the opinion expressed about topic t by a given document d. The qualitative adjective scoring algorithm Qualscore assumes that the rating scale is a list of adjectives (or adjective adverb combinations) a.sub.l, . . . , a.sub.n in increasing order of "positiveness" of the adjective (e.g. for example, POSITIVE, HARSH, VERY HARSH)” The positivity or harshness of an opinion is an emotional response to an opinion and not whether the opinion expresses truth. Therefore, Subrahmanian does not teach all the limitations of Applicant’s independent claims.
Ramotaur et al., US PGPUB 20230247075 A1, E-witnesses Procedure In A Document Management System, teaches in par 030 taking on a user interface a witness statement. However Ramotaur does not teach limitations pertaining to generating a trust score about the statement as recited in the independent claims. Therefore, Ramotaur does not teach all the limitations of Applicant’s independent claims.
Harvey, US Pat No 11860852 B1, Systems And Methods For Analyzing Veracity Of Statements, teaches in Fig 4 that statements have elements extracted to determine their falsity and an alert is sent. This is done by parsing to determine an indicator, see par 0410. However the truth or falsity is found by comparing a current statement and a previous statement to find falsity. See col 17 ln 62 – col 18 ln 3. This does not teach the steps in the independent claims to arrive at the trust score and therefore does not teach all the limitations of Applicant’s claims.
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