DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This communication is a non-final action on the merits in response to the amendments and arguments filed on May 27, 2026. Claim 1 was amended. Claim 1 is currently pending and has been examined.
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 .
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 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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), 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), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because the claim limitation(s) uses 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: “customer terminal”; “first acquaintance terminal”; and “second acquaintance terminal”.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim 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, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent Claim 1 recites “a server (110) that automatically constructs and updates a graph-structured personal network map,” and “an acquaintance management unit (112) that automatically generates and updates the graph-structured personal network map,” yet Applicant’s specification fails to disclose any updating of the personal network map. The specification only teaches constructing/generating and storing the map, but there is no indication, implicitly or explicitly, of any updating of the map. xxx.
Independent Claim 1 also recites “computes a transaction stability by applying a weighted multi-degree reliability-propagation algorithm to the graph-structured personal network map, the computing of the transaction stability comprising traversing the graph-structured personal network map in a single structured pass and reusing reliability values stored at nodes of the graph to combine reliability information across multiple degrees of acquaintances, thereby avoiding repeated pairwise trust calculations for each acquaintance and extended connection,” yet Applicant’s specification fails to disclose traversing the map in a single structured pass and reusing reliability values stored at nodes of the graph, as well as avoiding repeated pairwise trust calculations. Paragraph [0067] recites “The reliability controller 113 is characterized in that it allows the customer to set the reliability of an acquaintance with a maximum score of 100 points, and the set score automatically increases by 1 point for each increase in successful transaction, while 10 points are deducted for incomplete or unsatisfactory transactions, and calculates transaction stability using the reliability score, where the transaction stability is calculated as: (my acquaintance’s reliability * 0.5) + (0.5 * (sum of n-th degree acquaintances' reliability / n)).” This states that a reliability score can be automatically increased or decreased, and also states that transaction stability is calculated using a stated formula. However, this does not teach or imply traversing the map in a single structured pass, or reusing reliability values stored at nodes of the graph, or avoiding repeated pairwise trust calculations. Paragraph [0051] recites “an acquaintance information database 122 that stores… a personal network map that represents the connections between the customer and acquaintances in the form of a map” and “a reliability information database 123 that stores the reliability information of acquaintances.” However, this also does not teach or imply traversing the map in a single structured pass, or reusing reliability values stored at nodes of the graph, or avoiding repeated pairwise trust calculations. The step of traversing the graph-structured personal network map in a single structured pass is a very specific and narrow step, and the specification does not provide any indication of this step or what it entails. The specification only provides a formula that calculates a transaction stability value using a reliability value, and recites that a personal network map is stored in a database. However, there is a specific functional requirement recited in the claim of traversing the personal network map in a single structured pass, which is not recited or described, explicitly or implicitly, in the specification. The same issue is present regarding avoiding repeated pairwise trust calculations for each acquaintance and extended connection. Regarding the step of reusing reliability values stored at nodes of the graph, the specification only recites that values are stored, however, the storing of values is not the same as and cannot be equated to the reusing of values, as reusing is a specific functional step.
Because the original disclosure does not support the identified limitations, one of ordinary skill in the art would not recognize the Applicant as in possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. Therefore, Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a machine. As such, it is directed to a statutory category of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1
Independent Claim 1 recites the following abstract ideas: “A mediation service comprising: a customer to generate and output its own location information; stores customer information, customer’s acquaintance information, and acquaintance reliability information; constructs and updates a graph-structured personal network map and performs mediation transactions between acquaintances based on requests from the customer , a first acquaintance , or a second acquaintance manages customer applications, determines the customer’s personal network level based on a number of customer’s personal networks, determines a transaction frequency level based on the customer’s transaction frequency, and recommends as acquaintances customers whose personal network level is above a reference personal network level or whose transaction frequency level is above a reference transaction frequency level, stores customer information, stores customer’s acquaintance information and the graph-structured personal network map of customer acquaintances, stores reliability information of acquaintances, stores information related to job postings or sales requested by acquaintances, and stores information about individuals recommended as acquaintances of the customer; manages customers , generates and updates the graph-structured personal network map using multi-degree acquaintance relationships and stores it generates reliability information for acquaintances and stores it , the reliability information including a reliability score for each of the acquaintances, stores information related to job postings or sales requested by acquaintances and mediates transactions related to job postings or sales between acquaintances , determines the customer’s personal network level based on the number of the customer’s personal networks and the transaction frequency level based on the customer’s transaction frequency, and recommends as acquaintances customers whose personal network level is above the reference personal network level or whose transaction frequency level is above the reference transaction frequency level; increases the reliability score for each of the acquaintances by 1 point for each increase in a number of successful transactions of a corresponding acquaintance of the acquaintances and decreases the score by 10 points for each incomplete or unsatisfactory transaction, and computes a transaction stability by applying a weighted multi-degree reliability-propagation algorithm to the graph-structured personal network map, the computing of the transaction stability comprising traversing the graph-structured personal network map in a single structured pass and reusing reliability values stored at nodes of the graph to combine reliability information across multiple degrees of acquaintances, thereby avoiding repeated pairwise trust calculations for each acquaintance and extended connection, the transaction stability being calculated as the (reliability score for the customer’s acquaintance * 0.5) + (0.5 * (a sum of reliability scores for first- to nth-degree acquaintances of the customer’s acquaintance) / n); receives the location information , recommends as first-degree acquaintances those customers who reside within a predetermined distance selected from 10 to 100 km from the customer’s location determined based on the location information and whose personal network level is above the reference personal network level, and continues to recommend as first-degree acquaintances customers whose personal network level is above the reference personal network level if the number of the customer’s personal network increases more than an average increase over a certain period; ensures secure payments for the mediation transactions between acquaintances using an escrow system based on the reliability score and the transaction stability; and classifies the network level as Stone if the first-degree acquaintances are less than 100, as Silver if the first-degree acquaintances are more than or equal to 100 and less than 1,000, as Gold if the first-degree acquaintances are more than or equal to 1,000 and less than 10,000, and as VIP if the first-degree acquaintances are more than or equal to 10,000.”
The limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, relates to commercial interactions including marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and also relates to legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts / legal obligations, and also relates to managing relationships or interactions between people including social activities (i.e., A mediation service comprising: a customer to generate and output its own location information; stores customer information, customer’s acquaintance information, and acquaintance reliability information; constructs and updates a graph-structured personal network map and performs mediation transactions between acquaintances based on requests from the customer, a first acquaintance, or a second acquaintance, manages customer applications, determines the customer’s personal network level based on a number of customer’s personal networks, determines a transaction frequency level based on the customer’s transaction frequency, and recommends as acquaintances customers whose personal network level is above a reference personal network level or whose transaction frequency level is above a reference transaction frequency level, stores customer information, stores customer’s acquaintance information and the graph-structured personal network map of customer acquaintances, stores reliability information of acquaintances, stores information related to job postings or sales requested by acquaintances, and stores information about individuals recommended as acquaintances of the customer; manages customers, generates and updates the graph-structured personal network map using multi-degree acquaintance relationships and stores it, generates reliability information for acquaintances and stores it, the reliability information including a reliability score for each of the acquaintances, stores information related to job postings or sales requested by acquaintances and mediates transactions related to job postings or sales between acquaintances, determines the customer’s personal network level based on the number of the customer’s personal networks and the transaction frequency level based on the customer’s transaction frequency, and recommends as acquaintances customers whose personal network level is above the reference personal network level or whose transaction frequency level is above the reference transaction frequency level; increases the reliability score for each of the acquaintances by 1 point for each increase in a number of successful transactions of a corresponding acquaintance of the acquaintances and decreases the score by 10 points for each incomplete or unsatisfactory transaction, and computes a transaction stability by applying a weighted multi-degree reliability-propagation algorithm to the graph-structured personal network map, the computing of the transaction stability comprising traversing the graph-structured personal network map in a single structured pass and reusing reliability values stored at nodes of the graph to combine reliability information across multiple degrees of acquaintances, thereby avoiding repeated pairwise trust calculations for each acquaintance and extended connection, the transaction stability being calculated as the (reliability score for the customer’s acquaintance * 0.5) + (0.5 * (a sum of reliability scores for first- to nth-degree acquaintances of the customer’s acquaintance) / n); receives the location information, recommends as first-degree acquaintances those customers who reside within a predetermined distance selected from 10 to 100 km from the customer’s location determined based on the location information and whose personal network level is above the reference personal network level, and continues to recommend as first-degree acquaintances customers whose personal network level is above the reference personal network level if the number of the customer’s personal network increases more than an average increase over a certain period; ensures secure payments for the mediation transactions between acquaintances using an escrow system based on the reliability score and the transaction stability; and classifies the network level as Stone if the first-degree acquaintances are less than 100, as Silver if the first-degree acquaintances are more than or equal to 100 and less than 1,000, as Gold if the first-degree acquaintances are more than or equal to 1,000 and less than 10,000, and as VIP if the first-degree acquaintances are more than or equal to 10,000), but for the recitation of generic computer components (i.e., a system, a GPS receiver configured to receive GPS signals from at least two GPS satellites, databases, a server, various terminals, various units, a reliability controller, and multiple registered applications executing within a single integrated application environment using a unified execution, with one operation of the single integrated application). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, relates to commercial interactions including marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and also relates to legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts / legal obligations, and also relates to managing relationships or interactions between people including social activities, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Additionally, the limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical formulas or equations / mathematical calculations (i.e., generates reliability information including a reliability score for each of the acquaintances, increases the reliability score for each of the acquaintances by 1 point for each increase in a number of successful transactions of a corresponding acquaintance of the acquaintances and decreases the score by 10 points for each incomplete or unsatisfactory transaction, computes a transaction stability by applying a weighted multi-degree reliability-propagation algorithm to the graph-structured personal network map, the computing of the transaction stability comprising traversing the graph-structured personal network map in a single structured pass and reusing reliability values stored at nodes of the graph to combine reliability information across multiple degrees of acquaintances, thereby avoiding repeated pairwise trust calculations for each acquaintance and extended connection, the transaction stability being calculated as the (reliability score for the customer’s acquaintance * 0.5) + (0.5 * (a sum of reliability scores for first- to nth-degree acquaintances of the customer’s acquaintance) / n)), but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical formulas or equations / mathematical calculations, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include: (1) Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)), (2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)). In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a system, a GPS receiver configured to receive GPS signals from at least two GPS satellites, databases, a server, various terminals, various units, a reliability controller, and multiple registered applications executing within a single integrated application environment using a unified execution, with one operation of the single integrated application. The computer hardware is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., generic GPS receiver for receiving GPS signals to generate location information, generic databases storing information, generic computers receiving, determining, generating, and outputting information, and generic recitation of multiple applications executing within a single integrated application) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since they do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), they do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), they do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and they do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. The additional elements of using computer hardware (a system, a GPS receiver configured to receive GPS signals from at least two GPS satellites, databases, a server, various terminals, various units, a reliability controller, and multiple registered applications executing within a single integrated application environment using a unified execution, with one operation of the single integrated application) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent-eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 and 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
Ramirez et al. (US-20170011411), in combination with the other references relied upon, teaches a customer terminal including a GPS receiver configured to receive GPS signals from at least two GPS satellites to generate and output its own location information; a database that stores customer information, customer's acquaintance information, and acquaintance reliability information; a server that automatically constructs a graph-structured personal network map and performs mediation transactions between acquaintances based on requests from the customer terminal, a first acquaintance terminal, or a second acquaintance terminal, manages customer applications, determines the customer’s personal network level based on a number of customer's personal networks, determines a transaction frequency level based on the customer's transaction frequency, and recommends as acquaintances customers whose personal network level is above a reference personal network level or whose transaction frequency level is above a reference transaction frequency level, wherein the database includes: a customer information database that stores customer information, an acquaintance information database that stores customer's acquaintance information and the graph-structured personal network map of customer acquaintances, a reliability information database that stores reliability information of acquaintances, a notification information database that stores information related to job postings or sales requested by acquaintances, and a recommendation information database that stores information about individuals recommended as acquaintances of the customer; wherein the server includes: a membership management unit that manages customers in the customer information database, an acquaintance management unit that generates the graph-structured personal network map and stores it in the acquaintance information database, a reliability controller that generates reliability information for acquaintances and stores it in the reliability information database, the reliability information including a reliability score for each of the acquaintances, a notification mediation unit that stores information related to job postings or sales requested by acquaintances in the notification information database and mediates transactions related to job postings or sales between acquaintances by referring to the notification information database, and a recommendation unit that determines the customer's personal network level based on the number of the customer's personal networks and the transaction frequency level based on the customer's transaction frequency, and recommends as acquaintances customers whose personal network level is above the reference personal network level or whose transaction frequency level is above the reference transaction frequency level; wherein the reliability controller increases the reliability score for each of the acquaintances by 1 point for each increase in a number of successful transactions of a corresponding acquaintance of the acquaintances and decreases the score by 10 points for each incomplete or unsatisfactory transaction; wherein the recommendation unit receives the location information from the customer terminal, recommends as first-degree acquaintances those customers who reside within a predetermined distance selected from 10 to 100 km from the customer's location determined based on the location information and whose personal network level is above the reference personal network level, and continues to recommend as first-degree acquaintances customers whose personal network level is above the reference personal network level if the number of the customer's personal network increases more than an average increase over a certain period; and wherein the recommendation unit classifies the network level as Stone if the first-degree acquaintances are less than 100, as Silver if the first-degree acquaintances are more than or equal to 100 and less than 1,000, as Gold if the first-degree acquaintances are more than or equal to 1,000 and less than 10,000, and as VIP if the first-degree acquaintances are more than or equal to 10,000.
However, the combination of references does not teach a server that automatically constructs and updates a graph-structured personal network map, an acquaintance management unit that automatically generates and updates the graph-structured personal network map using multi-degree acquaintance relationships, and an application management unit configured to execute multiple registered applications within a single integrated application environment using a unified execution operation; wherein the reliability controller computes a transaction stability by applying a weighted multi-degree reliability-propagation algorithm to the graph-structured personal network map, the computing of the transaction stability comprising traversing the graph-structured personal network map in a single structured pass and reusing reliability values stored at nodes of the graph to combine reliability information across multiple degrees of acquaintances, thereby avoiding repeated pairwise trust calculations for each acquaintance and extended connection, the transaction stability being calculated as the (reliability score for the customer's acquaintance * 0.5) + (0.5 * (a sum of reliability scores for first- to nth-degree acquaintances of the customer's acquaintance) / n); and wherein the payment unit ensures secure payments for the mediation transactions between acquaintances using an escrow system based on the reliability score and the transaction stability; wherein the application management unit causes multiple registered applications of the customer or acquaintances to execute within a single integrated application with one operation of the single integrated application.
The closest NPL, “Trust-oriented buyer strategies for seller reporting and selection in competitive electronic marketplaces,” teaches determining a seller reporting strategy in online marketplaces by modeling the trustworthiness of buyers in reporting seller information, and modeling the trustworthiness of sellers, and considering the buyers’ preferences. However, it does not teach generating a personal network map, or computing a transaction stability by applying a weighted multi-degree reliability-propagation algorithm to the personal network map, the transaction stability being calculated as the (reliability score for the customer's acquaintance * 0.5) + (0.5 * (a sum of reliability scores for first- to nth-degree acquaintances of the customer's acquaintance) / n), or receiving location information from a customer terminal, or recommending customers who reside within a predetermined distance from the customer's location and whose personal network level is above a reference personal network level, or continuing to recommend customers whose personal network level is above the reference personal network level if the number of the customer's personal network increases more than an average increase over a certain period.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Argument Regarding 35 USC 101 Rejection of Claim 1:
Enfish, McRO, Example 40, and the Claimed Invention:
The claimed invention is analogous to Enfish, McRO, and USPTO Example 40, each of which was deemed patent-eligible because the improvement arose from a specific data structure or algorithmic technique that improved computer performance.
Enfish discloses a data structure that improves the way a computer stores and retrieves data by using a self-referential table, and was deemed patent-eligible because the improvement arose from the data structure itself rather than from an abstract idea.
McRO discloses a rule-based data processing technique that improves computer animation by applying specific rules to generate outputs more efficiently than manual methods, and was deemed patent-eligible because the improvement arose from the algorithmic structure, not from a business rule.
USPTO Example 40 discloses a data structure-based improvement that reduces repeated, unnecessary processing of network traffic data and improves computer performance, and was deemed patent-eligible because reducing computational load through a specific data structure constitutes a technical improvement.
The claimed Invention discloses a graph-structured personal network map and a weighted multi-degree reliability propagation algorithm that compute a transaction stability value in a single structured traversal while reusing stored reliability values, thereby avoiding repeated pairwise trust calculations and reducing computational load. This improvement arises from the claimed data structure (the personal network map) and algorithm, and therefore constitutes a technical improvement analogous to Enfish, McRO, and Example 40.
Also, if reducing redundant operations through a specific data structure and algorithm is incidental, then the improvements in Enfish, McRO, and Example 40 would also be incidental, since each of those cases found patent eligibility specifically because reducing redundant operations through a particular data structure or algorithm was a technical improvement to computer functionality, not a side effect. The claimed invention follows the same pattern and therefore recites a technical improvement under §101.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The Examiner characterizes the claims as directed to organizing human activity. This characterization does not reflect the actual claim language. The claims recite specific computer-implemented structures and operations, including:
a graph-structured personal network map generated and updated by the server
[0051] "a personal network map that represents the connections between the customer and acquaintances in the form of a map"
Explanation: This explicitly discloses a map-based data structure representing nodes (acquaintances) and edges (connections), i.e., a graph.
[0074] "the acquaintance management unit 112… generates the customer's acquaintance information and personal network map, and stores it…"
Explanation: This shows the server generates and updates the map.
multi-degree acquaintance relationships stored in a structured database
[0069] "acquaintances of acquaintances may also be registered as acquaintances of the customer."
Explanation: This explicitly discloses first-degree, second-degree, and higher-degree relationships.
[0051] "an acquaintance information database 122 that stores… a personal network map that represents the connections…"
Explanation: This shows the multi-degree relationships are stored in a structured database.
a weighted multi-degree reliability-propagation algorithm executed by the reliability controller
[0066] "calculates transaction stability… (my acquaintance's reliability * 0.5) + (0.5 * (sum of n-th degree acquaintances' reliability / n))"
Explanation: This discloses a weighted combination of direct and n-th degree reliability values, i.e., multi-degree propagation.
[0023] "a reliability controller 113 that generates reliability information for acquaintances and stores it…"
Explanation: This identifies the server component that executes the algorithmic computation.
single-pass traversal of the graph-structured map
[0066] "calculates transaction stability… (my acquaintance's reliability * 0.5) + (0.5 * (sum of n-th degree acquaintances' reliability / n))"
Explanation: The computation of a single stability value using all degrees at once implies a single structured traversal rather than repeated pairwise calculations.
reuse of stored reliability values at graph nodes
[0051] "a reliability information database 123 that stores the reliability information of acquaintances."
Explanation: Reliability values are stored at nodes and later reused during computation.
[0066] "the set score automatically increases… and calculates transaction stability using the reliability score…"
Explanation: This shows stored reliability values are reused in subsequent calculations.
avoidance of repeated pairwise trust calculations through algorithmic propagation
[0066] "(sum of n-th degree acquaintances' reliability / n)"
Explanation: Computing a single aggregated value across all degrees avoids repeated pairwise trust calculations (A>B, A>C, A>D, etc.).
[0069] "acquaintances of acquaintances may also be registered…"
Explanation: Multi-degree propagation replaces repeated pairwise evaluation with a single aggregated computation.
This is not organizing human activity. It is a specific data structures and algorithmic technique implemented by a server to improve the way the computer processes multi-degree relationship data.
In addition, Applicant respectfully disagrees that claim 1 is "directed to" a mathematical concept under Step 2A Prong 1. The claim does not recite a mathematical formula in isolation, nor does it seek to preempt any mathematical relationship. Instead, the recited arithmetic expression is merely the final step of a multi-step computational process performed by a server using a specific data structure. As shown in [0051], [0069], and [0074], the system constructs and stores a graph-structured personal network map representing multi-degree acquaintance relationships. As shown in [0051] and [0066], reliability values are stored at nodes of that graph. As shown in [0066], the server executes a weighted multi-degree propagation algorithm that traverses the graph in a single structured pass, reuses stored node values, and avoids repeated pairwise computations. The arithmetic combination is simply the final aggregation step of this graph-based propagation algorithm. Under Enfish, McRO, and USPTO Example 40, such algorithmic processing of a specific data structure is not a mathematical concept, but a technical improvement to computer functionality. The same should apply to the claimed invention.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
Even assuming that the Examiner's characterization was correct, the claims integrate the concept into a practical application through:
A specific data structure: the graph-structured personal network map: The server automatically constructs and updates a graph-structured map of multi-degree acquaintances. This is a computer-specific data model that organizes relationship information in a manner not performed by humans and not achievable with generic data tables.
A specific algorithm: the weighted multi-degree reliability-propagation algorithm: The reliability controller computes transaction stability by:
traversing the graph in a single structured pass
[0066] "calculates transaction stability… (my acquaintance's reliability * 0.5) + (0.5 * (sum of n-th degree acquaintances' reliability / n))"
Explanation: The computation of a single transaction-stability value using all degrees at once implies a single structured traversal of the personal network map rather than repeated pairwise passes.
[0069] "acquaintances of acquaintances may also be registered as acquaintances of the customer."
Explanation: Multi-degree relationships exist in the map, and the algorithm processes them together in one aggregated computation, supporting a single traversal.
reusing reliability values stored at graph nodes
[0051] "a reliability information database 123 that stores the reliability information of acquaintances."
Explanation: Reliability values are stored at the nodes of the personal network map and later reused during computation.
[0066] "the set score automatically increases… and calculates transaction stability using the reliability score…"
Explanation: The system uses previously stored reliability values in subsequent calculations, demonstrating reuse of node-stored values.
combining reliability information across multiple degrees of acquaintances
[0066] "(my acquaintance's reliability * 0.5) + (0.5 * (sum of n-th degree acquaintances' reliability / n))"
Explanation: This explicitly discloses combining direct acquaintance reliability with aggregated n-th degree reliability values, i.e., multi-degree combination.
[0069] "acquaintances of acquaintances may also be registered as acquaintances…"
Explanation: The existence of multi-degree relationships enables the combination of reliability values across multiple degrees in the algorithm.
This is a rule-based computational process.
A specific technical effect: avoiding repeated pairwise computations: The algorithm eliminates the need for repeated pairwise trust calculations (e.g., A>B, A>C,A>D, etc.) that a conventional system would perform. This reduces redundant operations and improves computational efficiency.
A specific improvement to computer performance: The claimed traversal and propagation technique reduces the number of operations the computer must perform, thereby reducing processing load. This is a computer-centric improvement.
Alignment with Enfish, McRO, and Example 40: Each of these authorities recognizes that specific data structures and algorithmic techniques that improve computer performance constitute practical applications under Step 2A Prong 2.
Step 2B:
The claimed data structure is not generic: The graph-structured personal network map is a specific, non-conventional data structure that organizes multi-degree acquaintance information in a way that enables efficient propagation of reliability values.
The claimed algorithm is not generic: The weighted multi-degree reliability-propagation algorithm is a specific, non-conventional computational technique that:
traverses the graph in a single structured pass
[0066] "calculates transaction stability… (my acquaintance's reliability * 0.5) + (0.5 * (sum of n-th degree acquaintances' reliability / n))"
Explanation: The system computes a single transaction-stability value using all degrees of acquaintances at once, which necessarily implies a single structured pass through the personal network map rather than repeated pairwise traversals.
[0069] "acquaintances of acquaintances may also be registered as acquaintances of the customer."
Explanation: Multi-degree relationships exist in the map, and the algorithm processes them together in one aggregated computation, supporting a single traversal of the multi-degree graph.
reuses stored reliability values
[0051] "a reliability information database 123 that stores the reliability information of acquaintances."
Explanation: Reliability values are stored at the nodes of the personal network map and later reused during the transaction-stability computation.
[0066] "the set score automatically increases… and calculates transaction stability using the reliability score…"
Explanation: The system uses previously stored reliability values in subsequent calculations, demonstrating reuse of node-stored values.
avoids repeated pairwise computations
[0066] "(sum of n-th degree acquaintances' reliability / n)"
Explanation: By aggregating all n-th degree reliability values into a single computation, the system avoids performing repeated pairwise trust calculations (A>B, A>C, A>D, etc.).
[0069] "acquaintances of acquaintances may also be registered…"
Explanation: Because multi-degree acquaintances are processed collectively, the algorithm replaces repeated pairwise evaluations with a single aggregated computation, thereby avoiding redundant operations.
This is not a generic mathematical formula; it is a structured algorithm that improves computer performance.
The claimed improvement is technical, not business-related: During the Examiner Interview, the Examiner stated that "fewer calculations" is not a technical improvement. This is inconsistent with controlling authority. With USPTO Example 40, reducing redundant operations and reducing the number of computations (and unnecessary resource usage) was deemed a technical improvement. The claimed invention achieves exactly this by eliminating repeated pairwise trust calculations through a single-pass graph traversal.
The combination of elements is not routine or conventional: Conventional systems do not:
represent acquaintances in a graph-structured map
propagate reliability values across multiple degrees
reuse stored node values during traversal
compute a unified stability metric in a single structured pass
Examiner’s Response: Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Enfish, McRO, Example 40, and the Claimed Invention:
The claimed invention is not analogous to Enfish, McRO, or Example 40. The claims of Enfish, McRO, and Example 40 all provided clear technical improvements, and further, the specifications provided specific explanations of how the claimed inventions provided the improvements.
Enfish enabled the claimed table to achieve benefits over conventional databases, such as increased flexibility, faster search times, and smaller memory requirements. Further, the specification discussed how the invention improved the way the computer stores and retrieves data in memory, and further, the claims recited the specific data structure.
The claims of McRO described a specific way to solve the problem of producing accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters, rather than merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome. The specification of McRO provided an explanation of how the particular rules recited in the claim enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could not be automated, and could only be performed subjectively by humans.
Claim 1 of USPTO Example 40 is directed to a particular improvement in collecting network traffic data. Specifically, the method limits collection of additional Netflow protocol data to when the initially collected data reflects an abnormal condition, which avoids excess traffic volume on the network and hindrance of network performance. The collected data can then be used to analyze the cause of the abnormal condition. This provides a specific improvement over prior systems, resulting in improved network monitoring.
The present claim recites steps that include generating and updating a personal network map, generating reliability scores for acquaintances, determining a customer’s personal network level and transaction frequency level, and recommending acquaintances. The present claim is directed to an abstract idea falling under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (CMO), without providing any technical improvement. Regarding Applicant’s argument that the claimed invention “discloses a graph-structured personal network map and a weighted multi-degree reliability propagation algorithm that compute a transaction stability value in a single structured traversal while reusing stored reliability values, thereby avoiding repeated pairwise trust calculations and reducing computational load,” the specification does not provide any details of how the claimed invention, or how the use of a data structure (i.e., the personal network map) or of an algorithm, provides any improvement to the functioning of a computer. Per MPEP 2106.04(d), to determine that the claim improves technology or a technical field, the specification must describe the invention such that the technical improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art, and cannot set forth an improvement only in a conclusory manner without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The graph-structured personal network map representing the connections between the customer and acquaintances is not an additional element; rather, it is part of the abstract idea itself. The server that generates the map is recited as a mere tool to implement the abstract idea of generating and updating a map.
The multi-degree acquaintance relationships are also part of the abstract idea, and the database that stores the relationships is also recited as a mere tool to implement the abstract idea of storing relationships.
The weighted multi-degree reliability-propagation algorithm is also part of the abstract idea, also falling under Mathematical Concepts, and the reliability controller that executes the algorithm is also recited as a mere tool to implement the abstract idea of executing an algorithm.
The single-pass traversal of the graph-structured map is also part of the abstract idea. The specification does not provide support for this limitation, and further, the specification only describes calculating a value using a single formula.
The reuse of stored reliability values at graph nodes is also part of the abstract idea, and the database that stores the values is recited as a mere tool to implement the abstract idea of storing information.
The avoidance of repeated pairwise trust calculations through algorithmic propagation is also part of the abstract idea. The specification does not provide support for this limitation, and further, the specification only describes a single formula used to calculate a single value.
The specification does not provide any detail as to how the claimed invention provides any improvement to the functioning of the computer itself.
The claim is directed to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (CMO), and some of the steps of the claim are also directed to Mathematical Concepts, as they recite a formula and the calculation of a value. The constructing and storing of a graph-structured personal network map representing multi-degree acquaintance relationships is part of the abstract idea falling under CMO, and could also fall under Mental Processes, as a person can construct and store the map using their mind, pen, and paper.
The server is an additional element that is used as a mere tool to implement the abstract idea of executing an algorithm that traverses a graph using stored values.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The server is an additional element that is recited as a mere tool to implement the abstract idea of constructing and updating a graph-structured map of multi-degree acquaintances. Regarding Applicant’s argument that it’s “a computer-specific data model that organizes relationship information in a manner not performed by humans and not achievable with generic data tables,” based on both the claims and the specification, the map is described simply as a graph that shows acquaintances and relationships between them, including the degree of the relationships. Based on this explanation, the graph can be a simple knowledge graph with nodes and edges that can be constructed by a human using paper and pen.
The reliability controller is also recited as a mere tool to implement the abstract idea of computing a single value using a single formula, and the reliability information database is also recited as a mere tool to implement the abstract idea of storing information for retrieval.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the “algorithm eliminates the need for repeated pairwise trust calculations (e.g., A>B, A>C,A>D, etc.) that a conventional system would perform,” and that it “reduces redundant operations and improves computational efficiency,” and also Applicant’s argument that the “claimed traversal and propagation technique reduces the number of operations the computer must perform, thereby reducing processing load,” these are stated in a conclusory manner, and further, the specification does not provide any details of how the claimed invention provides these improvements to the functioning of computer systems.
Step 2B:
As previously stated, the graph-structured personal network map and the claimed algorithm are not additional elements; rather, they are part of the abstract idea itself, which includes the organizing of the acquaintance information, traversing the graph, calculating a transaction stability value, and reusing stored reliability values.
Also as previously stated, the specification does not provide any detail as to how the claimed invention improves computer performance.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the combination of elements is not routine or conventional, beyond the map and algorithm not being additional elements, the claims and the specification describe the map as a simple knowledge graph that shows relationships and degrees of relationships between individuals. Reusing stored information is also conventional. Regarding propagating reliability values across multiple degrees, and computing a unified stability metric in a single structured pass, the specification simply describes this as a single formula that is used to calculate a single value.
The claim limitations are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, and the claimed invention does not pertain to an improvement in the functioning of the computer itself. Thus, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor are they sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARMA EL-CHANTI whose telephone number is (571)272-3404. The examiner can normally be reached T-Sa 10am-6pm ET.
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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at (571)270-1833. 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.
/KARMA A EL-CHANTI/Examiner, Art Unit 3629 /SARAH M MONFELDT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights