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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/17/2024 was in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 5 and 9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on April 28, 2026.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations in claims 10-18 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 limitations use 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 limitations are: “obtaining unit” and “calculating unit” in claims 1-3, 6-8 and 10-14.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Claims 1-3, 6-8 and 10-14 have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations 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 limitations recites 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.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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 1-4, 6-8 and 10-15 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.
Claims 1 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite “a network obtaining unit configured to obtain a first network in which a plurality of nodes corresponding one-to-one to a plurality of entities are connected together by edges each representing a trading relationship; and an influence-level calculating unit configured to calculate an influence level in a part or whole of the first network, wherein each of the plurality of nodes included in the first network is provided with a tag including one or more of a plurality of tag values, and wherein for each of a plurality of paths including a reference node corresponding to an entity of interest in the first network, the influence-level calculating unit performs processing to determine a weight of the path in accordance with the trading relationship between the plurality of nodes on the path, determine weights of one or more tag transition patterns by determining the one or more tag transition patterns in accordance with the one or more tag values of the node on the path, the one or more tag transition patterns each representing a transition of the one or more tag values along the path, and by distributing the weight of the path in accordance with a determined number of tag transition patterns, and upon receiving a given selection condition including at least a designated tag value, determine the influence level exerted upon the entity of interest in accordance with the weights of the one or more tag transition patterns selected based on the given selection condition.”
The recited limitations above are a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation done by a human but for the recitation of generic computer components under mental steps (human using pen and paper). That is, other than reciting “processing system”, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human using generic computer components. For example, “obtain”, “calculate”, “determine”, “determine” and “receiving” in the context of this claim encompasses the user to manually determine the weight of tag given for an influencer based on interest.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The computer elements recited at a high-level of generality (generic computer elements performing a generic computer function of receiving information, identifying solutions and determining what should be presented to a user) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, the additional elements recited do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims 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 element of using the computer elements to perform the steps of claims 1 and 15 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The limitations of the dependent claims 2-4, 6-8 and 10-14, further describe the identified abstract idea. In addition, the limitations of claims 2-4, 6-8 and 10-14 define how the weight is given for a tag which further describes the abstract idea. None of the dependent claims when taken separately in combination with each dependent claims parent claim overcome the above analysis and are therefore similarly rejected as being ineligible.
The prior art of record does not teach the limitations of claims 1-15.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZEINA ELCHANTI whose telephone number is (313)446-6561. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 PM EST.
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, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached at 571-272-4602. 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.
/ZEINA ELCHANTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights