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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending and rejected. This action is a Non-Final office action.
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 they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Here the independent claims include 1, 8 and 15, All are “statutory classes” of invention, System, Method and non-transitory medium, (Step 1 Yes)
These limitations are under their broadest reasonable interpretation cover performance of limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity, which is a fundamental economic practice. If a claim limitation under it’s broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitations as a fundamental economic practice it falls within certain methods of organizing human activity.
Claim 8 is being analyzed as representative;
The abstract elements are;
receiving transaction review values associated with a user from a plurality of marketplaces, each transaction review value being associated with a transaction involving the user;
applying a weight to the transaction review values to generate weighted transaction review values based on at least a first characteristic of each transaction involving the user,
wherein the weight of the first characteristic for a first transaction involving the user is different than the weight of the first characteristic for a second transaction involving the user;
generating a baseline trust score for the user based on an aggregation of the weighted transaction review values;
receiving a request for the baseline trust score for the user in connection with a new transaction between the user and at least one other user; and providing the baseline trust score to the at least one other user to facilitate completion of the new transaction.
There are no technical elements in the method claim. In claim 1, a system, “one or more servers”, a processor, and memory , in claim 15, non-transitory medium.
Step 2A prong 1 yes the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial is not integrated into a practical application. The computer hardware/software are recited at a high level of generality. Therefore claims 1, 8 and 15 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application . Step 2A prong 2 No, the addition claims are not integrated into a practical applications)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because when considered separately and as an ordered combination they do not add significantly more known as inventive concept to the exception. The computer hardware., claim 1 details a server, processor and memory which are generic computing elements rather than specific computing elements.
These elements do not intgrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computing component cannot provided an inventive concept. Accordingly these additional elements do not change the outcome of the analysis. Step 2B No the claims do not provide significantly more.
The dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, 16-20-do not change the analysis except that claim 2 for example details artificial intelligence which might be further integrated. Thus the claim 1-20 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) claims1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being unpatentable over
US Patent to Chrapko 9721296
As per claim 8 Chrapko discloses; A method, comprising:
receiving transaction review values associated with a user from a plurality of marketplaces,
each transaction review value being associated with a transaction involving the user
; Chrapko( col 5 35-55)
applying a weight to the transaction review values Chrapko(col. 5 lines 1-10)
to generate weighted transaction review values based on at least a first characteristic of each transaction involving the user,
wherein the weight of the first characteristic for a first transaction involving the user is different than the weight of the first characteristic for a second transaction involving the user;
col. 6 lines 35-45, Characteristics, any)
generating a baseline trust score for the user based on an aggregation of the weighted transaction review values; Chrapko(col. 12, lines 1-10, baseline trust score)
receiving a request for the baseline trust score for the user in connection with a new transaction between the user and at least one other user; and providing the baseline trust score to the at least one other user to facilitate completion of the new transaction.
Chrapko(col. 22, facilitate transactions)
Claims 1, 15 are similar to claim 8
As per claims 2, 9 and 16 Chrapko discloses;
The trust platform system of claim 1, wherein the baseline trust score is generated by an artificial-intelligence model associated with the trust platform system. Chrapko(Col. 36 lines 15-20)
As per claims 3, 10,17 Chrapko discloses;
3. The trust platform system of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, are further operable to: receive a new transaction review value for the user associated with the new transaction;
determine a difference between the new transaction review value and the baseline trust score for the user; adjust the new transaction review value to generate an adjusted new transaction review value based on the difference between the new transaction review value and the baseline trust score; and provide the adjusted new transaction review value to a marketplace associated with the new transaction.
Chrapko(Col. 37 adjusted by the user, col. 41)
As per claims 5,12,19 Chrapko discloses;
The trust platform system of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, are further operable to: receive background data associated with the user from one or more background data sources; and validate the baseline trust score for the user based on the background data.
Chrapko(Col. 3 lines 40-50)
As per claims 2, 9 and 16 Chrapko discloses
The trust platform system of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor to generate weighted transaction review values, are further operable to: apply a first weight to a transaction review value associated with the first transaction based on the first characteristic; and apply a second weight to a transaction review value associated with the second transaction based on the first characteristic; wherein the first weight differs from the second weight based on a context of the first transaction and the second transaction.
Chrapko(fig. 18, col. 3 lines 1-30, may weight based on various factors including credit)
As per claims 6,13,20 Chrapko discloses
the trust platform system of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor to generate weighted transaction review values, are further operable to: apply the weight to the transaction review values based on a second characteristic of each transaction involving the user, wherein the second characteristic differs from the first characteristic.
Chrapko(col 34, lines 1-10, weights, various characteristics)
As per claims 7,14 Chrapko discloses;
The trust platform system of claim 1, wherein the first characteristic of each transaction includes one of an amount, a geographic location, a date, a time of day, a product, a service, or a role of the user.
Chrapko(col. 5 45-50, location, one of)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Maintaining Review Credibility Using NLP, Reputation, and Blockchain, IEEE 2022
Managing Reputation Scores in a Blockchain-based Decentralized Marketplace, IEEE 2022
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRUCE I EBERSMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3442. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am - 5:00 pm Monday-Friday.
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 W Anderson 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 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.
/BRUCE I EBERSMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
