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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of following reasons:
US Patent 11,475,008 contain(s) every element of claims 21-40 of the instant application 17/930821 and thus anticipate or obvious the claim(s) of the instant application. Claims of the instant application 17/930821, therefore are not patently distinct from the earlier patent claims and as such are unpatentable over obvious-type double patenting. A later patent/application claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier claim if the later claim is anticipated by the earlier claim.
A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a 35 patent claim to a species within that genus). " ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION F£)R REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001).
The dependent claims are anticipated or obvious by the species of the patented invention. Cf., Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775,227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (holding that an earlier species disclosure in the prior art defeats any generic claim). This court's predecessor has held that, without a terminal disclaimer, the species claims preclude issuance of the generic application. In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 944, 214 USPQ 761,767 (CCPA 1982); Schneller, 397 F.2d at 354. Accordingly, absent a terminal disclaimer. The dependent claims were properly rejected under the doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting." (In re Goodman (CA FC) 29 USPQ2d 2010 (12/3/1993).
19/170,732
US 12,299,689
11. (New) A system comprising:
cluster of networked devices, each networked device having a processor; a server having a connection via a network to each device in the cluster of networked devices; a data store housing a representation of a network of computation devices, each computation device represented by a node, each network connection between two computation devices represented by an out-link and an in-link;
wherein a path between two computation devices in the network may be represented by one or more pluralities of links between different computation devices in the network;
the server comprising computer executable instructions for executing the following steps upon receiving a request to initiate a trust-based transaction:
determine a publication group to publish at least some information relating to the first trust-based transaction, wherein determining the publication group comprises:
accessing information in the data store relating to the representation;
identifying paths in the representation from a first computation device to at least one of a plurality of other computation devices in the network of computation devices; and
calculating a connectivity value between the first computation device and the at least one of the plurality of other computation devices, wherein the calculating comprises: identifying a plurality of links in the identified paths;
for one or more identified links, accessing a data structure to identify nodes connected to the identified link; and
for each identified node, calculating, using one or more of the cluster of networked devices, an out-link weight for one or more out- links of the identified node;
wherein the calculated connectivity value is based on the calculated out-link weights; and
adding the at least one of the plurality of other computation devices to the publication group based on the calculated connectivity value; and
transmit, to the publication group via network connection, information related to the first trust-based transaction.
1. 1. A system for determining network connectivity comprising:
a cluster of mobile devices, each mobile device having a processor; a server having a connection via a network to each mobile device in the cluster of mobile devices; a data store housing a representation of a network of computation devices, each computation device represented by a node, each network connection between two computation devices represented by an out-link and an in-link;
wherein a path between two computation devices in the network may be represented by one or more pluralities of links between different computation devices in the network;
the server comprising computer executable instructions for executing the following steps upon receiving a request for network connectivity between two computation devices:
accessing information in the datastore relating to the representation;
identifying paths in the representation from a first computation device to a second computation device; identifying sub-processes required to
calculate a connectivity value between the first computation device and the second computation device, wherein identifying the sub-processes comprises: identifying a plurality of links in the identified paths;
for one or more identified links, accessing the data store to identify nodes connected to the identified link; and
for each identified node, creating an indication of a sub-process, wherein the sub-process comprises calculating an out-link weight for one or more out-links of the identified node;
distributing the indications of the sub-processes to the cluster of mobile devices for parallel computation;
receiving, from the plurality of mobile devices in the cluster of mobile devices, calculated out-link weights for the identified nodes; and
calculating a connectivity value based on the calculated out-link weights;
publishing information relating to the connectivity value in response to the request; and
transmitting information relating to the connectivity value so that the first communication device may initiate a communication with the second communication device in reliance upon the connectivity value..
19. (New) A method comprising:
transmitting, to a first device and a plurality of computation devices of a network of computation devices, software for communications relating to trust-based transactions;
receiving with a server, a request from the first device's software to initiate a first trust-based transaction;
determining with the server whether the first trust-based transaction is public;
if the first trust-based transaction is public, determining a publication group to publish at least some information relating to the first trust-based transaction, wherein determining the publication group comprises:
accessing, with at least one server, information in a datastore relating to the network of computation devices;
identifying, with the at least one server, paths in the network of computation devices from the first device to at least one of the plurality of computation devices of the network of computation devices; and
calculating a connectivity value between the first computation device and the at least one of the plurality of computation devices of the network of computation devices, wherein the calculating comprises:
identifying a plurality of links in the identified paths;
for one or more identified links, accessing a data structure to identify nodes connected to the identified link; and
for each identified node, calculating an out-link weight for one or more out-links of the identified node;
calculating the connectivity value based on the calculated out-link weights; and
adding the at least one of the plurality of computation devices of the network of computation devices to the publication group based on the calculated connectivity value.
2. The system of claim 1 wherein the server further comprises computer executable instructions for executing the following steps: determining whether the request is public, and publish the information relating to the connectivity value to a plurality of computation devices.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
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 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims at a high level recite classifying and marching documents.
Step 1: Does the Claim Fall within a Statutory Category?
Yes. Claims 19-20 recite a method and are directed to the statutory class.
The USPTO Guidance recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes) (Step 2A, Prong 1); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong 2). MPEP §§ 2106.04(a), (d).
Only if the claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look in Step 2B to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field; or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Step 2A, Prong One: Is a Judicial Exception Recited?
First, determine whether the claims recite any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes). MPEP § 2106.04(a).
Claim 1 recites –
▪ determining with the server whether the first trust-based transaction is public (Abstract Idea of a mental process, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is an abstract idea of “a mental process” because it recites a process that can be performed in the human mind (i.e., observation, determination, evaluation, judgment, and opinion) — a user can reason whether transaction is public);
▪ if the first trust-based transaction is public, determining a publication group to publish at least some information relating to the first trust-based transaction, wherein determining the publication group comprises: accessing, with at least one server, information in a datastore relating to the network of computation devices (Abstract Idea of a mental process, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is an abstract idea of “a mental process” because it recites a process that can be performed in the human mind (i.e., observation, determination, evaluation, judgment, and opinion) — a user can obtain information based on the transaction being public);
▪ identifying, with the at least one server, paths in the network of computation devices from the first device to at least one of the plurality of computation devices of the network of computation devices (Abstract Idea of a mental process, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is an abstract idea of “a mental process” because it recites a process that can be performed in the human mind (i.e., observation, determination, evaluation, judgment, and opinion) — a user can logically determine path / destinations for the transaction);
▪ calculating a connectivity value between the first computation device and the at least one of the plurality of computation devices of the network of computation devices, wherein the calculating comprises: identifying a plurality of links in the identified paths; for one or more identified links, accessing a data structure to identify nodes connected to the identified link; and for each identified node, calculating an out-link weight for one or more out-links of the identified node; calculating the connectivity value based on the calculated out-link weights (Abstract Idea of a mental process, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is an abstract idea of “a mental process” because it recites a process that can be performed in the human mind (i.e., observation, determination, evaluation, judgment, and opinion) — mathematical reasoning see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(l). Note: under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, the claimed invention encompasses mathematical concept (e.g., Mathematical Formula or Equations));
▪ adding the at least one of the plurality of computation devices of the network of computation devices to the publication group based on the calculated connectivity value (Abstract Idea of a mental process, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is an abstract idea of “a mental process” because it recites a process that can be performed in the human mind (i.e., observation, determination, evaluation, judgment, and opinion) — a user can logically specify access for the nodes allowed to be connected);
These limitations, based on their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite a mental process, i.e. a judicial exception.
A method, like the claimed method, “a process that employs mathematical algorithms to manipulate existing information to generate additional information is not patent eligible.” See Digitech Image Techs, LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014). See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) where collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying results from certain results of the collection and analysis was held to be an abstract idea. See In re Meyer, 688 F.2d 789, 795—96 (CCPA 1982), which held that “a mental process that a neurologist should follow” when testing a patient for nervous system malfunctions was not patentable.
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Is the Abstract Idea Integrated into a Practical Application?
Next determine whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h)). To integrate the exception into a practical application, the additional claim elements must, for example, improve the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)), apply the judicial exception with a particular machine (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)), or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(e)).
Additional elements:
▪ transmitting, to a first device and a plurality of computation devices of a network of computation devices, software for communications relating to trust-based transactions (A generic computer functions of receiving and processing that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. A data transmission is merely extra-solution activities and does not meaningfully limit the independent claims. Generic computer implementation does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer component. Examiner’s note: high level application of merely invoking a computer components to apply the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(f));
▪ receiving with a server, a request from the first device's software to initiate a first trust-based transaction (Generic computer functions of receiving data and executing software does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP § 2106.05(g) Examiner’s note: high level application of merely invoking a computer components to apply the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(f));
The term “additional elements” for claim features, limitations, or steps that the claim recites beyond the identified judicial exception. Claim do not recite any improvements to these additional elements, nor does the claims recite any particularly programmed or configured computer system, device, or machine learning. Rather, the additional elements in claim 19 serve merely to automate the abstract idea. See Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp. v. Zillow Group, Inc., 50 F. 4" 1371, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (“[A] patent that ‘automate[s] “pen and paper methodologies” to conserve human resources and minimize errors’ is a ‘quintessential “do it on a computer” patent’ directed to an abstract idea.”) (quoting Univ. of Fla. Rsch. Found., Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 916 F.3d 1363, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2019)). Therefore, none of these recited additional elements, whether considered individually or in combination, integrates the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional elements listed above that relate to computing components are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic components performing generic computer functions such as communicating and processing known data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computing components. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Additionally, the claims do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. There is no technological problem that the claimed invention solves. Rather, the computer system is invoked merely as a tool. 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. Therefore, these claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 19 recites - a plurality of computation devices of a network of computation devices, software for communications relating to trust-based transactions and a server (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(Il). Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the computer at each step of the process is purely conventional. Using a computer and associated computer network to obtain data, use data to identify other data, and comparing data, are some of the most basic functions of a computer. All of these computer functions are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. The method claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Instead, the claims at issue amount to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea of displaying, processing and storing data using some unspecified, generic computer).
Step 2B: The additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
For these reasons, independent claim 19 is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the Claim Provide an Inventive Concept?
Next, determine whether the claims recite an “inventive concept” that “must be significantly more than the abstract idea itself, and cannot simply be an instruction to implement or apply the abstract idea on a computer.” BASCOM Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see MPEP § 2106.05(d). There must be more than “computer functions [that] are “well-understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry.” Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225 (2014) (second alteration in original) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 73 (2012)); see MPEP § 2106.05(d).
No “inventive concept” sufficient to transform the abstract method of organizing human activity into a patent-eligible application. See MPEP § 2106.05. Rather, the additional elements identified above are merely well-understood, conventional computer components, as confirmed by the Specification. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(1). For example, the Specification refers to the additional elements in generic terms.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements relating to computing components amount to no more than applying the exception using a generic computing components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computing component cannot provide an inventive concept. Furthermore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed computer components (i.e., additional elements) includes any generic computing components that are capable of being programmed to communicate and process known data.
Additionally, the computer components are used for performing insignificant extra-solution activity and well understood, routine, and conventional functions. For example, the claimed processor and machine learning merely communicates and processes known data. Activities such as these are insignificant extra-solution activity and, therefore, well understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d); see also, e.g., OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 (Presenting offers to potential customers and gathering statistics generated based on the testing about how potential customers responded to the offers; the statistics are then used to calculate an optimized price); CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754 (Consulting and updating an activity log); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display); Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1244, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1856 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Recording a customer’s order); Return Mail, Inc. v. U.S. Postal Service, -- F.3d --, -- USPQ2d --, slip op. at 32 (Fed. Cir. August 28, 2017) (Identifying undeliverable mail items, decoding data on those mail items, and creating output data); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1331, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (Arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price). Furthermore, limitations such as integrating account details are well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. See Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log).
Independent system claim 19 contain the identified abstract ideas, with the additional elements of computation devices of a network and a server, which is a generic computer component, and thus not significantly more for the same reasons and rationale above.
Dependent claim 20 further describe the abstract idea. The additional elements of the dependent claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, as the dependent claims remain directed to a judicial exception, and as the additional elements of the claims do not amount to significantly more, the dependent claims are not patent eligible. As such, the claims are not patent eligible.
With respect to claim 20:
Step 2A Prong 1: the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea)
▪ if the first trust-based transaction is public: publishing the information relating to the first trust-based transaction to the one or more computation devices of the publication group; and transmitting, to the one or more computation devices of the publication group, information related to the first trust-based transaction with which information a computation device of the publication group may initiate a second trust-based transaction; or if the first trust-based transaction is not public: not publishing the information relating to the first trust-based transaction to the one or more computation devices of the publication group; and not transmitting, to the one or more computation devices of the publication group, information related to the first trust-based transaction with which information a computation device of the publication group may initiate a second trust-based transaction (Abstract Idea of a mental process. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the obtaining/determining probability distribution and divergence, as drafted, is an abstract idea of “a mental process” because it recites a process that can be performed in the human mind (i.e., observation, determination, evaluation, judgment, and opinion) — a user can manually determine whether transaction is public or not and publish information based on the determination).
Step 2A Prong 2: the additional elements that are not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Additional elements:
one or more computation devices, transmitting information, initiate a trust-based transaction (Amount to mere instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer component. A mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
Step 2B: the additional element is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Additional elements: listed above in step 2A prong 2. The additional elements which, considered individually and as an ordered combination with the additional elements from the claim upon which it depends, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 20 is ineligible.
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 12-22, 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) 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, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 20 recites – “if the first trust-based transaction is public: publishing the information relating to the first trust-based transaction to the one or more computation devices of the publication group; and transmitting, to the one or more computation devices of the publication group, information related to the first trust-based transaction with which information a computation device of the publication group may initiate a second trust-based transaction; or if the first trust-based transaction is not public: not publishing the information relating to the first trust-based transaction to the one or more computation devices of the publication group; and not transmitting, to the one or more computation devices of the publication group, information related to the first trust-based transaction with which information a computation device of the publication group may initiate a second trust-based transaction.”
This limitation is not supported by the specification as originally filed. Paragraph [0098] (published version) instead teaches – “determination is made whether the transaction is a public or private transaction. In some embodiments, users may designate specific transactions as public or private.” However, the level of details required by the claim 20 is not disclosed. It seems the applicant is interpreting the specification. Such functionality is only an assumption, it is still not an original disclosure.
Claims 12-22 recite publish the information relating to the first trust-based transaction to the publication group in response to determining that the first trust-based transaction is public, or not publish the information relating to the first trust-based transaction to the publication group in response to determining that the first trust-based transaction is not public and publishing the information, only if the first trust-based transaction is public; and, if the first trust-based transaction is not public, omitting the step of publishing the information.
Further, any negative limitations (emphasized above) or exclusionary proviso must have basis in the original disclosure. If alternative elements are positively recited in the specification, they may be explicitly excluded in the claims. See In re Johnson, 558 F.2d 1008, 1019, 194 USPQ 187, 196 (CCPA 1977) ( [the] specification, having described the whole, necessarily described the part remaining. ). See also Ex parte Grasselli, 231 USPQ 393 (Bd. App. 1983), aff d mem., 738 F.2d 453 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The mere absence of a positive recitation is not basis for an exclusion. Any claim containing a negative limitation which does not have basis in the original disclosure should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Note that a lack of literal basis in the specification for a negative limitation may not be sufficient to establish a prima facie case for lack of descriptive support. Ex parte Parks, 30 USPQ2d 1234, 1236 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993). See MPEP 2163 - 2163.07(b) for a discussion of the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 11, 13-18, 21, 23-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeager et al. (US 20030055894) in view of the applicant’s admitted prior art Kurian et al. (US 2008/0133391) and in further view of Duhan et al. “Page Ranking Algorithms: A Survey”.
Regarding claim 11, Yeager teaches a system comprising:
cluster of networked devices, each networked device having a processor ([0045]);
a server having a connection via a network to each device in the cluster of networked devices ([0049], [0058]);
a data store housing a representation of a network of computation devices, each computation device represented by a node, each network connection between two computation devices represented by an out-link and an in-link ([0050]);
wherein a path between two computation devices in the network may be represented by one or more pluralities of links between different computation devices in the network ([0075]-[0077]);
the server comprising computer executable instructions for executing the following steps upon receiving a request to initiate a trust-based transaction ([0013], [0055]):
determine a publication group to publish at least some information relating to the first trust-based transaction ([0113]-[0114], [0124], [0163], [0174], [0201], [0232], [0250]) (see NOTE I), wherein determining the publication group comprises:
accessing information in the data store relating to the representation ([0058]);
identifying paths in the representation from a first computation device to at least one of a plurality of other computation devices in the network of computation devices ([0075]-[0077]); and
calculating a connectivity value between the first computation device and the at least one of the plurality of other computation devices ([0128]), wherein the calculating comprises:
identifying a plurality of links in the identified paths ([0075]-[0077]);
for one or more identified links, accessing a data structure to identify nodes connected to the identified link ([0107]); and for each identified node, calculating, using one or more of the cluster of networked devices, an out-link weight for one or more out- links of the identified node ([0075], [0085]); wherein the calculated connectivity value is based on the calculated out-link weights ([0109], [0124], [0128])(see NOTE II); and
adding the at least one of the plurality of other computation devices to the publication group based on the calculated connectivity value ([0113]-[0114], [0163], [0174], [0201], [0232], [0250]) (see NOTE I); and
transmit, to the publication group via network connection, information related to the first trust-based transaction ([0118]-[0120], [0123]).
NOTE I if Yeager does not explicitly teach, however Kurian discloses determine a publication group to publish at least some information relating to the first trust-based transaction (See Kurian paragraphs 11, 42-44, 46-48, 50, 54- 59, 82-85, 87-90, 99-106, 116-124 and Figure 1, 7 and 13, 15-16) and adding the at least one of the plurality of other computation devices to the publication group based on the calculated connectivity value (See Kurian paragraphs 11, 50-54, 61-62, 81-85, 87-97 and Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Yeager to determine a publication group to publish at least some information relating to the first trust-based transaction as disclosed by Kurian. Doing so would encode financial trust relationships in online communities, and to enable related actions based upon such relationships (Kurian [0010]).
NOTE II – the claim requires a particular formula for the calculation of the connectivity value. While the prior of art Yeager does might not exactly disclose such formula, Yeager discloses similar computations. However, the concept of back propagation of link weights is known in art. For example, a well-known PageRank algorithm (proposed by L. Page, S. Brin in 1999, well before the present application) fully discloses such formula and any particular equation would be an obvious to try combination of elements in order to achieve a predictable results. See MPEP 2143.
However, if Yeager does not explicitly teach, however Duhan discloses a connectivity value between the first computation device and the at least one of the plurality of computation devices of the network of computation devices, wherein the calculating comprises: identifying a plurality of links in the identified paths; for one or more identified links, accessing a data structure to identify nodes connected to the identified link; and for each identified node, calculating an out-link weight for one or more out-links of the identified node; calculating the connectivity value based on the calculated out-link weights (see pp.1531-1533 ¶A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Yeager to include calculating a connectivity value as disclosed by Duhan. Doing so would help manage the information on the web and satisfy the user needs (Duhan p.1530 C1).
Claim 21 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1, and is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claims 13 and 23, Yeager as modified teaches the system and the method further comprises computer executable instructions for executing the following step publish the information by publishing a link to an application related to the first trust- based transaction (See Kurian paragraphs 11, 54, 82-85, 87-97 and Figure 1).
Regarding claims 14 and 24, Yeager as modified teaches the system and the method wherein the published link allows at least one of the plurality of other computation devices to access the application directly from activating the link (See Kurian paragraphs 11, 54, 82-85, 87-97 and Figures 1, 7).
Regarding claims 15 and 25, Yeager as modified teaches the system and the method further comprises pre-populate at least some information in a second trust-based transaction with information from the first trust-based transaction (Yeager [0096], [0108], [0128], [0130], [0142]).
Regarding claims 16 Yeager as modified teaches the system further comprises pre-populate at least some information by pre-populating at least a primary data value (Yeager [0096], [0108], [0128], [0130], [0142]).
Regarding claims 17 and 26, Yeager as modified teaches the system and the method further comprises to determine the publication group by comparing the determined connectivity value to a threshold connectivity value (Yeager [0073], [0108], [0128], [0130], [0142], [0297] “new peer needs to reach some level of connectivity”).
NOTE the applicant’s admitted prior art Chrapko et al. (US2012/0182882) in [0015], [0017] likewise discloses claims 17, 26 and further obviates the teachings of Yeager as modified.
Regarding claims 18 and 27, Yeager as modified teaches the system and the method to determine the publication group by determining a threshold path weight value (Yeager [0096], [0108], [0128], [0130], [0142]).
Regarding claims 28 and 30, Yeager as modified teaches the system and the method wherein determining the publication group comprises accessing attribute flag information associated with the first trust-based transaction (Yeager [0118], [0120], [0161], [0182]), wherein the attribute flag information is indicative of at least other computation devices relevant to the first trust-based transaction (Yeager [0319], [0321], [0128], [0130], [0142], [0300]).
Regarding claims 29 Yeager as modified teaches the method of claim 28 wherein the attribute flag information identifies at least one group of computation devices whose computation devices may be relevant to the first trust- based transaction (Yeager [0091], [0100], [0128], [0275], [0277]).
Claims 12 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeager as modified and in further view of Subramaniam et al. (US 20010034723) or Nemoy et al. (US 8413261).
Regarding claims 12 and 22, Yeager does not explicitly teach, however Subramaniam or Nemoy disclose determine if the first trust-based transaction is public; and publish the information relating to the first trust-based transaction to the publication group in response to determining that the first trust-based transaction is public, or not publish the information relating to the first trust-based transaction to the publication group in response to determining that the first trust-based transaction is not public (Subramaniam [0075]-[0076], [0078]-[0079], Nemoy F5B:520, 524 C9L60-67, C1152-67, C12L55-67, C13L8-65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Yeager to determining with the server whether the first trust-based transaction is public distributing public keys as disclosed by Subramaniam or Nemoy. Doing so validates the identities of parties in the transaction and this, the gradual revelation of identifying information can be controlled (Subramaniam [0099]).
Claims 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeager et al. (US 20030055894) in view of Subramaniam et al. (US 20010034723) or Nemoy et al. (US 8413261) and in further view of Duhan et al. “Page Ranking Algorithms: A Survey”.
Regarding claim 19, Yeager teaches a method comprising:
transmitting, to a first device and a plurality of computation devices of a network of computation devices, software for communications relating to trust-based transactions ([0049], [0051], [0056], [0058]);
receiving with a server, a request from the first device's software to initiate a first trust-based transaction ([0032], [0075], [0122], [0124], [0143]);
distributing public keys ([0112], [0118], [0367]);
accessing, with at least one server, information in a datastore relating to the network of computation devices ([0058]);
identifying, with the at least one server, paths in the network of computation devices from the first device to at least one of the plurality of computation devices of the network of computation devices ([0075]-[0077]); and calculating a connectivity value between the first computation device and the at least one of the plurality of computation devices of the network of computation devices, wherein the calculating comprises:
identifying a plurality of links in the identified paths ([0128]); for one or more identified links, accessing a data structure to identify nodes connected to the identified link; and for each identified node, calculating an out-link weight for one or more out-links of the identified node ([0075]-[0077]); calculating the connectivity value based on the calculated out-link weights ([0059], [0075], [0083]) (see NOTE); and
adding the at least one of the plurality of computation devices of the network of computation devices to the publication group based on the calculated connectivity value ([0113]-[0114], [0163], [0174], [0201], [0232], [0250]).
Yeager does not explicitly teach, however Subramaniam discloses determining with the server whether the first trust-based transaction is public ([0075] “uses the new transaction identifier to determine whether a transaction is public or private”); if the first trust-based transaction is public, determining a publication group to publish at least some information relating to the first trust-based transaction ([0076], [0078]-[0079]). Nemoy discloses the same in F5B:520, 524 C9L60-67, C1152-67, C12L55-67, C13L8-65.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Yeager to determining with the server whether the first trust-based transaction is public distributing public keys as disclosed by Subramaniam or Nemoy. Doing so validates the identities of parties in the transaction and this, the gradual revelation of identifying information can be controlled (Subramaniam [0099]).
Further note in analogous prior art Conti et al. (US 20220222387) likewise discloses the limitation above in Claims 6, 12, [0048], [0051]-[0052] and further obviates the teachings of Yeager.
NOTE – the claim requires a particular formula for the calculation of the connectivity value. While the prior of art Yeager does might not exactly disclose such formula, Yeager discloses similar computations. However, the concept of back propagation of link weights is known in art. For example, a well-known PageRank algorithm (proposed by L. Page, S. Brin in 1999, well before the present application) fully discloses such formula and any particular equation would be an obvious to try combination of elements in order to achieve a predictable results. See MPEP 2143.
However, if Yeager does not explicitly teach, however Duhan discloses a connectivity value between the first computation device and the at least one of the plurality of computation devices of the network of computation devices, wherein the calculating comprises: identifying a plurality of links in the identified paths; for one or more identified links, accessing a data structure to identify nodes connected to the identified link; and for each identified node, calculating an out-link weight for one or more out-links of the identified node; calculating the connectivity value based on the calculated out-link weights (see pp.1531-1533 ¶A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Yeager to include calculating a connectivity value as disclosed by Duhan. Doing so would help manage the information on the web and satisfy the user needs (Duhan p.1530 C1).
Regarding claim 20, Yeager as modified teaches the method of claim 19 further comprising: if the first trust-based transaction is public: publishing the information relating to the first trust-based transaction to the one or more computation devices of the publication group; and transmitting, to the one or more computation devices of the publication group, information related to the first trust-based transaction with which information a computation device of the publication group may initiate a second trust-based transaction (Subramaniam [0092], [0094]-[0095]); or if the first trust-based transaction is not public: not publishing the information relating to the first trust-based transaction to the one or more computation devices of the publication group (Subramaniam [0096]); and not transmitting, to the one or more computation devices of the publication group, information related to the first trust-based transaction with which information a computation device of the publication group may initiate a second trust-based transaction (Subramaniam [0080], [0098], [0103], Nemoy F5B:520, 524 C9L60-67, C1152-67, C12L55-67, C13L8-65).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is indicated on PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to POLINA G PEACH whose telephone number is (571)270-7646. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30 - 5:30.
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, Aleksandr Kerzhner can be reached at 571-270-1760. 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.
/POLINA G PEACH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2165 March 23, 2026