DETAILED ACTION
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Double Patenting
1. A rejection based on double patenting of the "same invention" type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that "whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process may obtain a patent therefor...' (Emphasis added). Thus, the term "same invention," in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller V. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
In this regard, the Office notes / remarks that independent claim 1 of the instant application and independent claim 1 of Patent 9,264,329 (Chrapko et al) are both reciting identical method claims, comprising identical claim elements and/or limitations, and are thus claiming the same inventio
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter 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. Claim 1 is directed to an abstracted idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because it is equivalent to tasks of collecting data, recognizing certain data within the collected data set, and storing that recognized data in memory (See Content Extraction V. Wells Fargo) and also involves tasks of comparing new and stored information and using rules to identify options (See SmartGene V. Advanced Biological Laboratories, SA, and ABL Patent Licensing Technologies, Sarl).
Claim 1 is rejected Under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, claim 1 is determined to be directed to an abstract idea.. Please see the Preliminary Examination instructions in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. V CLS Bank International et. al.
(http://www.uspto.gov/parents/announce/alice_pec 25june2014.pdf).
Claim 1 is directed toward a method/system comprising the following task: determining the network connectivity values for nodes and providing the information to the third party for real world decisions. This invention is simply a social connectivity system. Therefore, it is abstract under step 1 in Alice-organizing human activities. This system is a social network connectivity system that does not enhance the functionality of the computer, Further, claim 1 does not recite limitations that are "significantly more" than the abstract idea because the claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The limitations are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry. Therefore, claim 1 is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 14, 16, 18 and 20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mui, L. et al., "A Computational Model of Trust and Reputation", Proceedings of the 35th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, HICSS '02, vol. 7, pages 2431-2439, 7-10 January 2002, herein after "Mui" in view of Cortez et al. "Cortez" (US Patent No. 7,130, 262-B1).
Regarding claim 1, Mui teaches "a method for determining the network connectivity between a first node and a second node connected to the first node by at least one path, the method comprising: identifying paths to the second node from the first node within a network community; and determine a user connectivity value between the first node and the second node; determine at least one connectivity statistics value for the first node; combine the at least one connectivity statistics value and the user connectivity value between the first node and the second node to produce a network connectivity indication; and output the network connectivity indication." [Agent a and b are equivalent to the first and second node here respectively. Since agent a would like to estimate agent b's reputation as defined by embedded network between them. Since they care about knowing more about each other, they are considered to be part of same community. In other words, they are not stranger. Number of encounters (indication of confidence level) is equivalent to network connectivity here. See Figure 2, Section 5 and 6].
However, Mui does not teach "using processing circuitry to: determine a path score for each identified path"
But Cortez teaches "using processing circuitry to: determine a path score (weight) for each identified path" [See Figs. 3A - 3C. The figs. illustrate the process for determining an optimal path in a network using different link weights (equivalent to Score here) Col 1 lines 25-32]
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to include processing circuitry as taught by Cortez in the system of Mui. The motivation for such an inclusion is to improve the quality of service in the communication network wherein the method / system can be implemented in a social network.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GLENFORD J MADAMBA whose telephone number is (571)272-7989. The examiner can normally be reached on Mondays to Fridays, from 9am to 5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christopher Parry, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-8328. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/GLENFORD J MADAMBA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2451
Prosecution Insights