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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s representative argues the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. Applicant’s representative further states “the recited claims define a specific technical mechanism for generating, updating and processing machine-learning-derived trust metrics within a networked computing environment.
In response, it has been clearly enumerated that claims directed to an abstract idea are patent-ineligible. Abstract ideas are characterized as concepts identified by the courts which include (1) mathematical concepts, (2) mental processes and (3) certain methods of organizing human activity.
Among those concepts performed as being identified in the category of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” are “commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations).
Here, the claimed concept falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106. 04(a}2)UD, because they amount to limitations specifying steps or functions of organizing human activities such as managing commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations).
The BRI lays in the system and method for generating a first trust score for the selected user based, at least in part, upon the application the first social media data, and in response to receiving a selection of the listing by the requestor user, generating a second trust score for the requestor user based, at least in part, upon an application of second social media data associated with the requestor user and generating a sharing score based upon a comparison of the first trust score to the second trust score.
Therefore the claims recite a commercial or legal interaction as such is an abstract concept.
Each of these independent claims uses generic computer technology (such as a generic computer system comprising a processor in communication with at least one memory device and comprising a machine learning scoring algorithm for performing generic computer functions as such do not recite an improvement to a particular computer technology. See, e.g., McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F .3 d 1299, 1314-1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ( finding claims not abstract because they "focused on a specific asserted improvement in computer animation").
As such, claims 1, 8 and 15 recite generating and receiving data or information, and displaying data on a user interface, as these functions are not a technological implementation or improvement of a technological field.
Applicant is to be reminded that a system, apparatus, machine or method for performing business, however, novel, useful, or commercially successful, is not patentable apart from the means for making the system practically useful or carrying it out. The applicant is making use of generic computing devices to finally generate a second trust sore for a requestor user based, at least in part, upon an application of second social media data associated with the requestor user, and a sharing score based upon a comparison of the first trust score to the second trust score.
Accordingly, the additional elements (such as a generic preprocessor in communication with at least one memory device) do not improve (1) the processor or database and user interface, or (2) another technology or technical field. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (citing MPEP § 2106.05(a)). Rather, the above-noted additional elements merely (1) apply the abstract idea on a computer; (2) include instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer (computing device or system) ; or (3) use the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (citing MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the recited additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application when reading the claims.
None of the steps, functions and/or elements recited in the claims provide, and nowhere in the applicant’s shows any description or explanation as to how the claimed computing device or mobile device are intended to provide: (1) a “solution . . . necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks,” as explained by the Federal Circuit in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2014); (2) “a specific improvement to the way computers operate,” as explained in Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1336; or (3) an “unconventional technological solution ... to a technological problem” that “improve[s] the performance of the system itself,” as explained in Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288, 1299-1300 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant’s representative then argues that the claims are directed to “Significantly More” than the Abstract idea because the elements of each claim must be examined both individually and as an ordered combination to determine whether the elements transform the nature of the claim into a patentable eligible application and that the claims recite more than well-understood, routing or conventional activities at least with respect to accurately and securely generating and providing electronic sharing scores between users by implementing a machine learning scoring architecture that improves how computer systems generate and present data-driven user reliability metrics between users.
In response, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because:
The additional elements when considered both individually and as a combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims recite the additional elements of a generic computer system comprising at least one processor in communication with at least on memory device and executing a machine learning algorithm.
The computer system with the at least one processor and the memory device taken individually or as a whole is seen as general purpose computer or a computer system performing generic computer functions. (see the applicant’s specification). These claimed devices are noted to perform routine computer functions such as receiving data, generating data, and displaying data on a computer screen or graphical user interface.
The claimed processor is seen as a generic computer performing generic functions without an inventive concept as such does not amount to significantly more. These devices are simply a field of use that attempts to limit the abstract idea to a particular environment. The type of data being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations. Looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are not patent eligible.
Furthermore, the applicant is directed to Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc., in which the Courts held that claims to a method for making websites easier to navigate on a small-screen device were not directed to an abstract idea. 880 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Here, the claims are not drafted in the format CoreWireless. Rather than providing a technical solution that improves the way the computing device, the applicant is merely using alternate ways of using a computer for allowing a user to make a purchase based on favorable actions taken by a user. The computer or computing device or electronic platform is then applied to the abstract idea. The claims do not provide sufficient details to transform the abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter. See, e.g. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2360 (explaining that claims that “amount to ‘nothing significantly more’ than an instruction to apply the abstract idea…using some unspecified, generic computer” is not ‘enough’ to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention” (quoting Mayo, 566, U.S. at 77, 79)); Intellectual Ventures LLC v. Capital One Fin.Corp., 850 F. 3d 1332, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“The claim language here provides only a result-oriented-solution with insufficient detail for how a computer accomplishes it”).
Each of the independent claims uses generic computer technology (such as a generic computing system) for generating and receiving data or information, and providing the data to a computing system as such do not recite an improvement to a particular computer technology. See, e.g., McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F .3 d 1299, 1314-1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ( finding claims not abstract because they "focused on a specific asserted improvement in computer animation").
Accordingly, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
A rejection of the claims as now amended is found below.
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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Subject Matter Eligibility Standard
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Specifically, claims 8 and 15 are directed to a method. Claim 1 is directed to a system. Each of the claims falls under one of the four statutory classes of invention.
If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea).
Claim 1 as an example recites :
A computer system for generating electronic sharing scores between users, the computer system comprising at least one processor in communication with at least one memory device, wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
retrieve feedback data associated with a plurality of users;
train a machine learning scoring algorithm by applying the feedback data, to the machine learning scoring algorithm, the machine learning scoring algorithm configured to generate a trust score for each user of the plurality of users indicating a level of trustworthiness of that user when engaging with another user of the plurality of users;
apply first social media data associated with a selected user of the plurality of users to the trained machine learning scoring algorithm;
execute the trained machine learning scoring algorithm to generate a first trust score for the selected user based, at least in part, upon the application of the first social media data to the trained machine learning scoring algorithm;
cause display, on a user interface of a user computing device associated with a requestor user of users, an interactive electronic page including a listing of the selected user and the first trust score; and
in response to receiving a selection of the listing by the requestor user, (i) execute the trained machine learning scoring algorithm to generate a second trust score for the requestor user based, at least in part, upon an application of second social media data associated with the requestor user to the trained machine learning scoring algorithm, and (ii) generate a sharing score based upon a comparison of the first trust score to the second trust score.
Claim 2 recites: wherein the at least one processor is further configured to retrieve, from at least one social media server, the social media data associated with social media activities of the selected user.
Claim 3 recites: wherein the at least one processor is further configured to retrieve, from at least one insurance provider server, insurance data for the selected user.
Claim 4 recites: wherein the at least one processor is further configured to store, within the at least one memory device, the social media data and the insurance data of the selected user.
Claim 5 recites: wherein the at least one processor is further configured to apply the updated scoring algorithm to insurance data associated with the selected user.
Claim 6 recites: wherein the at least one processor is further configured to generate the trust score for the selected user based, at least in part, upon the application of the updated scoring algorithm to the insurance data.
Claim 7 recites: wherein the at least one processor is further configured to register, with the computer system, the one or more users, wherein each registered user is one of a consumer and a provider, wherein the consumer is associated with a consumer computing device, wherein the provider is associated with a provider computing device, wherein the consumer is interested in renting one or more items, and wherein the provider is interested in offering for rent the one or more items.
Claim 8 recites: A computer-implemented method using a computer system for generating electronic sharing scores between users, the computer system including at least one processor in communication with at least one memory device, the method comprising:
retrieving feedback data associated with a plurality of users;
training a machine learning scoring algorithm by applying the feedback data to the machine learning scoring algorithm, the machine learning scoring algorithm configured to generate a trust score for each user of the plurality of users indicating a level of trustworthiness of that user when engaging with another user of the plurality of users;
applying first social media data associated with a selected user of the plurality of users to the trained machine learning scoring algorithm;
executing the trained machine learning scoring algorithm to generate a first score for the selected user based, at least in part, upon the application of the first social media data to the trained machine learning scoring algorithm;
causing display, on a user interface of a user computing device associated with a requestor user of the plurality of users, an interactive electronic page including a listing of the selected user and the first trust score; and
in response to receiving a selection of the listing by the requestor user, (i) executing the trained machine learning scoring algorithm to generate a second trust score for the requestor user based, at least in part, upon an application of second social media data associated with the requestor user to the trained machine learning scoring algorithm, and (ii) generating a sharing score based upon a comparison of the first trust score to the second trust score.
Claim 9 recites: The computer-implemented method of claim 8 further comprising retrieving, from at least one social media server, the social media data associated with social media activities of the selected user.
Claim 10 recites: retrieving, from at least one insurance provider server, insurance data for the selected user.
Claim 11 recites: storing, within the at least one memory device, the social media data and the insurance data of the selected user.
Claim 12 recites: applying the updated scoring algorithm to insurance data associated with the selected user.
Claim 13 recites: generating the trust score for the selected user based, at least in part, upon the application of the updated scoring algorithm to the insurance data.
Claim 14 recites: registering, with the computer system, the one or more users, wherein each registered user is one of a consumer and a provider, wherein the consumer is associated with a consumer computing device, wherein the provider is associated with a provider computing device, wherein the consumer is interested in renting one or more items, and wherein the provider is interested in offering for rent the one or more items.
Claim 15 recites: At least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having computer-executable instructions embodied thereon, wherein when executed by at least one processor included in a computer system and in communication with at least one memory device, the computer-executable instructions cause the at least one processor to:
retrieve feedback data associated with a plurality of users;
train a machine learning scoring algorithm by applying the feedback data to the machine learning scoring algorithm, the machine learning scoring algorithm configured to generate a trust score for each user of the plurality of users indicating a level of trustworthiness of that user when engaging with another user of the plurality of users;
apply first social media data associated with a selected user of the plurality of users to the trained machine learning scoring algorithm;
execute the trained machine learning scoring algorithm to generate a first trust score for the selected user based, at least in part, upon the application of the first social media data to the trained machine learning scoring algorithm;
cause display, on a user interface of a user computing device associated with a requestor user of the plurality of users, an interactive electronic page including a listing of the selected user and the first trust score; and
in response to receiving a selection of the listing by the requestor user, (i) execute the trained machine learning scoring algorithm to generate a second trust score for the requestor user based, at least in part, upon an application of second social media data associated with the requestor user to the trained machine learning scoring algorithm, and (ii) generate a sharing score based upon a comparison of the first trust score to the second trust score.
Claim 16 recites: wherein the computer-executable instructions further cause the at least one processor to retrieve, from at least one social media server, the social media data associated with social media activities of the selected user.
Claim 17 recites: wherein the computer-executable instructions further cause the at least one processor to retrieve, from at least one insurance provider server, insurance data for the selected user.
Claim 18 recites: wherein the computer-executable instructions further cause the at least one processor to store, within the at least one memory device, the social media data and the insurance data of the selected user.
Claim 19 recites: wherein the computer-executable instructions further cause the at least one processor to apply the updated scoring algorithm to insurance data associated with the selected user.
Claim 20 recites: wherein the computer-executable instructions further cause the at least one processor to register, with the computer system, the one or more users, wherein each registered user is one of a consumer and a provider, wherein the consumer is associated with a consumer computing device, wherein the provider is associated with a provider computing device, wherein the consumer is interested in renting one or more items, and wherein the provider is interested in offering for rent the one or more items.
As per claims 1, 8 and 15, applicant is to be noted that the steps or functions of “receive” or “retrieving” are considered as data gathering functions. The functions of “update” or “updating”, “apply” or “applying” involve generic computer functions. Functions of “display” or “displaying” involve insignificant post solution activities.
Furthermore, the claimed concept falls into the category of functions of organizing human activities such as managing commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations).
The BRI lays in the system and method for generating a first trust score for the selected user based, at least in part, upon the application the first social media data, and in response to receiving a selection of the listing by the requestor user, generating a second trust score for the requestor user based, at least in part, upon an application of second social media data associated with the requestor user and generating a sharing score based upon a comparison of the first trust score to the second trust score.
Step 2A, Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, In particular, the clams recite the bolded limitations noted above as understood to be the additional limitations.
These limitations performing steps or functions by a processor and for generating sharing trust scores for selected users and training a machine learning, merely amount to instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea ( see MPEP 2106.05(1) ), also see applicant's specification for guiding interpretation of these claim features, describing implementation with generic commercially available devices or any machine capable of executing a set of instructions, similarly describing usage of a general and special purpose computer and including generic commercially available devices.
The claimed “processor”, “memory device”, “user interface”, “machine learning” of claim 1; the claimed “computer system”, “machine learning” , “memory device”, “computing device” and “user interface of claim 8; the “computer system”, “processor” and “user interface” of claim 15 are similarly understood in light of applicant's specification as mere usage of any arrangement of computer software or hardware intermediate components or display components potentially using networks to communicate between devices and display data which are properly understood to be mere instructions to apply the abstraction using a computer or device.
Performance of a receiving step by a computer processor amounts to performing steps which amount io insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering - see MPEP Z106.05(g).
Performing steps by generic computer processors with memories merely limit the abstraction to computer field by execution by generic computers. See MPEP 2106.05¢h).
As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), limitations which amount to instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool, limitations which amount to insignificant extra-solution activity, and limitations which amount to generally linking to a particular technological environment do not integrate a practical exception into a practical application.
The claims recite receiving data, updating data, generating data and displaying data using no specific structural devices even assuming these functions use specific devices would still be considered as gathering functions and using a device performing their intended functions. The breadth of these limitations reasonably includes receiving data and performing generic computer functions.
Step 2B: The elements discussed above with respect to the practical application in Step 2A, prong 2 are equally applicable to consideration of whether the claims amount to significantly more. Accordingly, the claims fail to recite additional elements which, when considered individually and in combination, amount to significantly more. Reconsideration of these elements identified as insignificant extra-solution activity as part of Step 2B does not change the analysis.
Receiving, updating, applying, generating and displaying data or information over a network has been recognized by the courts as well- understood, routine, and conventional (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), citing Symantec, 835 F.3d at 1321, 120 OSPQ2d at 1362 (Utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TL Communications LEC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, G10, L18 USPO2d 1744, 1748 (ed. Cir. 2016) Casing a telephone for image transmission); OFF Techs., fac. v. Amazon.com, fic., 788 B.Ad 1359, 1363, LiS USPO2d 1090, 1093 (ed, Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network}, buySAFE, fic. v. Google, Inc.. 768 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1996 (Pod, Cyr. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Positively reciting a processor”, “memory device”, “server” and a “user interface”
does not change the analysis as these aspects are properly considered as additional elements which amount to instructions to apply it with a computer.
These claimed elements also as found in the dependent claims are also recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component.
In processing the claims, it is noted that the recitation of these additional elements does not impact the analysis of the claims because these elements in combination are noted only to be a general purpose computer component for performing basic or routine computer functions. These claimed elements are noted to a be performing routine and conventional functions. These additional elements do not overcome the analysis as these elements are merely considered as additional elements which amount to instructions to be applied to the generic computer.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claimed “system”, processor”, “memory device” and “server” are recited at a high level of generality such they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, claims 1, 8 and 15 are directed to an abstract idea.
The dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1, 8 and 15 and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are also directed to an abstract idea.
The dependent claim(s) when analyzed and each taken as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea.
The prior art taken alone or in combination failed to teach or suggest:
“execute the trained machine learning scoring algorithm to generate a first trust score for the selected user based, at least in part, upon the application of the first social media data to the trained machine learning scoring algorithm, cause display, on a user interface of a user computing device associated with a requestor user of users, an interactive electronic page including a listing of the selected user and the first trust score, and in response to receiving a selection of the listing by the requestor user, (i) execute the trained machine learning scoring algorithm to generate a second trust score for the requestor user based, at least in part, upon an application of second social media data associated with the requestor user to the trained machine learning scoring algorithm, and (ii) generate a sharing score based upon a comparison of the first trust score to the second trust score”, as recited in independent claims 1 and 15 and as similarly recited in independent claim 8.
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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANTZY POINVIL whose telephone number is (571)272-6797. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 7:00AM to 5:30PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Anderson W. can be reached at 571-270-0508. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/fp/
/FRANTZY POINVIL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights