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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-28 of U.S. Patent No. 9578073. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant claims 1-20 overlap with in scope, and are thus anticipated by, respective claims 1-28 of the ‘073 patent.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No. 10380703. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant claims 1-20 overlap with in scope, and are thus anticipated by, respective claims 1-30 of the ‘703 patent.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 11900479. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant claims 1-20 overlap with in scope, and are thus anticipated by, respective claims 1-17 of the ‘479 patent.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12346979. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant claims 1-20 overlap with in scope, and are thus anticipated by, respective claims 1-20 of the ‘979 patent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) 1 and 16 recite the steps “identify[ing] paths…”, “receiv[ing] data…”, “receiv[ing] an indication…”, and “updat[ing] the trust score…” (mental processes comprising at least observation, evaluation, and judgement) and “calculat[ing] a network connectivity score…”, “calculat[ing] a ratings score…” and “determin[ing] a trust score…” (mental processes directed towards mathematical operations). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not recite any further limitations that either apply, rely on, or utilize the abstract idea in a manner that imposes meaningful limit on the abstract idea itself. For example, there’s no further recitation(s) of an improvement to a computerized function, specific technological environment, or technical field. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because none of clams 1-20 recite any additional elements which would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. For example, claim 16 recites “A system … comprising: processing circuitry”, which are equivalent to typical components used for storing (and retrieving) information in memory, and are thus recognized as being well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions (Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93). The examiner also takes Official Notice regarding the claimed “system … comprising: processing circuitry” as being well-known and conventional in the computer arts. Thus, the above identified abstract idea recited in claims 1 and 16, when considered individually and in combination with the above recited well-known, conventional components, fails to recite subject matter that would constitute as significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Further, dependent claims 2-15 and 17-20 also fail to recite any further limitations that would either recite a non-abstract idea, further integrate the above identified abstract idea into a practical application, or recite anything considered as significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, these claims are also rejected for the same reasons as applied to respective claims 1 and 16 above.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 6-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Chrapko” (US 2013/0013807) in view of “Vander Mey” (US 7822631).
Regarding Claim 1:
Chrapko teaches:
A method for updating a trust score (¶0018, “… a user connectivity or trust value…” & ¶0048, “In some embodiments, user connectivity values between two nodes may always be increased unless a user or node indicates that the interaction was unfavorable... Adverse interactions may automatically decrease user connectivity values while all other interactions increase user connectivity values"; i.e., increase/decrease trust values between two entities), the method comprising:
identifying paths from a first entity to a second entity (¶0007, “In an embodiment, a path counting approach may be used where processing circuitry is configured to count the number of paths between a first node n1 and a second node n2 within a network community”);
calculating a network connectivity score based on the identified paths (¶0011, “... only "qualified" paths may be used to determine connectivity values. A qualified path may be a path whose path weight meets any suitable predefined or dynamic criteria"; ¶0079, “… the connectivity between nodes a and b is a summation of path scores associated with one or more paths between an and b…”);
determining a trust score for the second entity by combining the network connectivity score and the … score (¶0010, “... the... trust rating a first node has for a second node may be based on a connectivity between the first node and the second node and one or more connectivity statistics associated with the first node”; i.e., calculate a trust score for a second node based on a network connectivity and connectivity statistics);
receiving an indication of an activity to be performed together by the first entity and the second entity (¶0048, “… user connectivity values between two nodes may always be increased unless a user or node indicates that the interaction was unfavorable, not successfully completed, or otherwise adverse”); and
updating the trust score based on the indication of the activity (¶0048, “Adverse interactions may automatically decrease user connectivity values while all interactions may increase user connectivity values…”; i.e., update a trust value based on an indication of a positive or negative experience of an activity performed between a first node and a second node).
Chrapko does not disclose:
receiving data about the second entity from a remote source;
calculating a ratings score based on the received data from the remote source;
determining a trust score for the second entity by combining the network connectivity score and the ratings score;
Vander Mey teaches:
receiving data about the second entity from a remote source (Col. 4, lines 22-36, “Various other types of trustworthiness factors may similarly be tracked and used in other embodiments, including... other types of information about a user, possibly from external sources (e.g., financial information, such as credit scores)");
calculating a ratings score based on the received data from the remote source (FIG. 1B shows a plurality of trustworthiness factors being calculated for each user);
determining a trust score for the second entity by combining the network connectivity score and the ratings score (FIG 1B, element 1330, “Calculated Trust Score Total”; Col. 6, lines 29-31 & 46-51, "A non-exclusive list of trustworthiness factors that may be used by a merchant to assess customer users of the merchant include... information about other users associated with the customer (e.g., buddies or friends, such as from one or more social networking organizations)"; i.e., combine a user's financial information (e.g., credit score) with the user's network connectivity (e.g., buddies or friends associated with the user) to determine the user's overall trust score shown in FIG 1B, element 1330).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Chrapko's system of generating a trust score between two entities by enhancing Chrapko’s calculation of trust scores to aggregate multiple trustworthiness factors, include a rating score and a network connectivity score, as taught by Vander Mey, in order to affiliate trust scores with prior activities associated with the entities.
The motivation is to provide more confidence in trust scores by associating established trust scores with entities with a longer length of activity history as opposed to entities with a shorter length or no activity history.
Regarding Claim 2:
The method of claim 1, wherein Chrapko in view of Vander Mey teaches the first entity and the second entity are connected through a social network (Chrapko, Abstract, “Systems and methods for social graph data analytics to determine the connectivity between nodes within a community…”; ¶0031, “For example, all or some subset of the users of a social networking website or social networking service (or any other type of website or service, such as an online gaming community) may make up a single network community”).
Regarding Claim 3:
The method of claim 2, wherein Chrapko in view of Vander Mey teaches identifying paths from the first entity to the second entity comprises identifying one or more intermediate entities in the social network that connect the first entity to the second entity (Chrapko, ¶0077, “…where Length(path) is the length of a particular path between a and b, for example in terms of the number of nodes the path passes through").
Regarding Claim 6:
The method of claim 1, wherein Chrapko in view of Vander Mey teaches calculating a network connectivity score based on the identified paths comprises determining whether the identified paths exceeds a threshold number of paths (Chrapko, ¶0011, “…only "qualified" paths may be used to determine connectivity values. A qualified path may be a path whose path weight meets any suitable predefined or dynamic criteria. For example, a qualified path may be a path whose path weight is greater than or equal to some threshold value”).
Regarding Claim 7:
The method of claim 1, wherein Chrapko in view of Vander Mey teaches the received data is one of: a credit score, criminal history data, financial transaction history data, and/or business reviews data (Vander Mey, Col. 4, lines 22-36, “Various other types of trustworthiness factors may similarly be tracked and used in other embodiments, including... other types of information about a user, possibly from external sources (e.g., financial information, such as credit scores)").
The motivation to apply Vander Mey in combination to Chrapko to reject claim 7 is the same motivation recited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 8:
The method of claim 1, wherein Chrapko in view of Vander Mey teaches determining the trust score for the second entity by combining the network connectivity score and the ratings score comprises combining the network connectivity score and the ratings score according to a weighted sum (Vander Mey, FIG. 1A, element 1202b shows weights applied to each trustworthiness factor to be summed for a user in determining the trust score, as shown by FIG. 1B, element 1330).
The motivation to apply Vander Mey in combination to Chrapko to reject claim 8 is the same motivation recited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 9:
The method of claim 8, wherein Chrapko in view of Vander Mey teaches the weighted sum is based on user-assigned weights (Vander Mey, Col. 6, lines 65-67, "For example, a user may be able to enhance or diminish the weight given to various other users...").
The motivation to apply Vander Mey in combination to Chrapko to reject claim 19 is the same motivation recited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 10:
The method of claim 8, wherein Chrapko in view of Vander Mey teaches the weighted sum is a first weighted sum (Vander Mey, FIG. 1B, element 1330 shows a first weighted sum for each user), and wherein updating the trust score based on the indication of the activity comprises combining the network connectivity score and the ratings score (Vander Mey, FIG. 1A, element 1202c shows a frequency to update each respective trustworthiness factor) according to a second weighted sum, wherein the second weighted sum is different than the first weighted sum (Vander Mey, Col. 12, lines 54-58, “Furthermore, in embodiments which users may each have multiple assessed trust scores, different assessed trust scores of a user may be used when assessing scores for different groups of users”; i.e., different calculated weighted sums).
The motivation to apply Vander Mey in combination to Chrapko to reject claim 10 is the same motivation recited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 11:
The method of claim 1, wherein Chrapko in view of Vander Mey teaches at least one of the first entity and the second entity is a human user (Chrapko, ¶0030, “... a node may also represent an individual human being...").
Regarding Claim 12:
The method of claim 1, wherein Chrapko in view of Vander Mey teaches at least one of the first entity and the second entity is a business (Chrapko, ¶0030, “... a node may also represent … entity (e.g., a legal entity, such as a public or private company, corporation, limited liability company…”...").
Regarding Claim 13:
The method of claim 1, Chrapko in view of Vander Mey further comprising resolving a decision related to the activity based, at least in part, on the updated trust score (Vander Mey, Col. 22, lines 15-28, “After step 1035, the routine continues to step 1040 to store the newly calculated trust scores for later use… The routine then continues to step 1045 to determine whether one or more of the assessed quality-related scores are below a suppression threshold for content, and if so continues to step 1050 to indicate to suppress the piece of content, although in other embodiments the routine may instead provide the assessed quality-related scores to others who will instead make such suppression-related decisions"; i.e., decide whether to suppress content based on prior activity and an updated trust score).
The motivation to apply Vander Mey in combination to Chrapko to reject claim 13 is the same motivation recited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 14:
The method of claim 1, wherein Chrapko in view of Vander Mey teaches the trust score for the second entity comprises a confidence range determined based on the network connectivity score and the ratings score (Vander Mey, FIG. 1B, element 1330 shows a range of trust scores given to three different users to which the examiner construes as meeting the recited "confidence range"; Col. 5, lines 20-29).
The motivation to apply Vander Mey in combination to Chrapko to reject claim 14 is the same motivation recited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 15:
The method of claim 1, wherein Chrapko in view of Vander Mey teaches determining the trust score for the second entity comprises:
retrieving an initial trust score associated with the second entity (Chrapko, ¶0047, “In some embodiments, a default user connectivity value… may be assigned initially to all links in the network community"; Vander Mey, FIG. 1B, element 1330 each shows initial trust scores for three separate users); and
updating the initial trust score associated with the second entity based on the network connectivity score and the ratings score (Chrapko, ¶0047, “After electronic interaction is identified between two or more nodes in the network community, user connectivity values may be adjusted upwards or downwards depending on the type of interaction”; Vander Mey, FIG. 1A, element 1202c shows a frequency to update each respective trustworthiness factor).
The motivation to apply Vander Mey in combination to Chrapko to reject claim 15 is the same motivation recited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding Claims 16-18:
System claims 16-18 correspond to method claims 1-3 and contain no additional limitations. Therefore claims 16-18 are rejected using the same rationale applied in rejecting claims 1-3 above, respectively.
Claims 4, 5, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Chrapko” (US 2013/0013807) in view of “Vander Mey” (US 7822631) in further view of “Choi" (US 2010/0004940).
Regarding Claim 4:
Chrapko in view of Vander Mey teaches:
The method of claim 2,
Chrapko in view of Vander Mey does not disclose:
… wherein calculating the network connectivity score comprises determining a number of mutual friends between the first entity and the second entity.
Choi teaches:
… wherein calculating the network connectivity score comprises determining a number of mutual friends between the first entity and the second entity (¶0048, "When another user requests the specified user's social style in the social networking application, the application determines the list of common friends between the user and the specified user. The application will then bias the specified user’s social profile towards the reviews completed by the common friends. This generated biased assessment becomes the “adjusted” assessment of the specified user's social style"; i.e., determine a mutual number of friends between a first user requesting a second user's social style and provide an "adjusted" social style weighted by the number of mutual friends between the users).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Chrapko in view of Vander Mey's system of generating a trust score between two entities by enhancing Chrapko in view of Vander Mey’s network connectivity score to include the number of mutual friends between two entities, as taught by Choi, in order to provide a more reliable and effective connectivity score between two entities.
The motivation is to utilize mutual friends to improve in trust of the connectivity score calculated between two users (Choi, ¶0027).
Regarding Claim 5:
The method of claim 4, wherein Chrapko in view of Vander Mey in further view of Choi teaches calculating the network connectivity score comprises assigning the network connectivity score according to a graduated scale based on the number of mutual friends between the first entity and the second entity (Choi, ¶0048, “The application will then bias the specified user’s social profile towards the reviews completed by the common friends. This generated biased assessment becomes the “adjusted” assessment of the specified user's social style. For example, the adjusted assessment might be derived exclusively from the set of common friends, or perhaps the assessment is weighted..."; i.e., the “adjusted” assessment calculation is scaled based on the number of mutual friends between users).
The motivation used to reject claim 5 by applying Choi to the combination of Chrapko in view of Vander Mey is the same motivation applied in the rejection of claim 4 above.
Regarding Claims 19 and 20:
System claims 19 and 20 correspond to method claims 4 and 5 and contain no additional limitations. Therefore claims 19 and 20 are rejected using the same rationale used in rejecting claims 4 and 5 above, respectively.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL B POTRATZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5329. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10 A.M. - 6 P.M. CST.
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, William Korzuch can be reached on 571-272-7589. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/DANIEL B POTRATZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2491
Prosecution Insights