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 CORRESPONDENCE
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 13 have been amended.
No claims have been cancelled.
Claims 26 – 28 have been added.
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 – 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite:
Claim 1:
displaying, to a post author, a request to submit a post within a fixed, system-determined period of time;
receiving, from the post author in response to the request and within the system-determined period of time, a social media post comprising post content;
determining a post authenticity score indicative of a degree of authenticity associated with the post by calculating said authenticity score based on one or more factors, wherein the step of determining a post authenticity score comprises evaluating a duration of time between a time of the request and a time at which the post author submits the post content in response thereto; and
displaying, by a user device: (a) the post content, and (b) the authenticity score
Claim 13:
displaying, to a post author, a request to submit a post;
receiving, from the post author in response to the request, a social media post comprising post content;
determining a post authenticity score indicative of a degree of authenticity associated with the post by calculating said authenticity score based on a plurality of factors comprising a time of the request, a time of posting the social media post, and at least one additional factor; and
displaying, by a user device: (a) the post content, and (b) the authenticity score
The invention is directed towards the abstract idea of managing social activities and relationships, which corresponds to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” as it is directed towards fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), e.g., mitigating the risk of an author’s authenticity by collecting information from an author, determining an authenticity score based on one or more factors, such as, but not limited to, time factors, and displaying the authenticity score and author provided content. The specification further discloses that the author provided content is for dating, i.e. social activities and relationships (see ¶ 1).
The limitations of:
Claim 1:
displaying, to a post author, a request to submit a post within a fixed, system-determined period of time;
receiving, from the post author in response to the request and within the system-determined period of time, a social media post comprising post content;
determining a post authenticity score indicative of a degree of authenticity associated with the post by calculating said authenticity score based on one or more factors, wherein the step of determining a post authenticity score comprises evaluating a duration of time between a time of the request and a time at which the post author submits the post content in response thereto; and
displaying, by a user device: (a) the post content, and (b) the authenticity score
Claim 13:
displaying, to a post author, a request to submit a post;
receiving, from the post author in response to the request, a social media post comprising post content;
determining a post authenticity score indicative of a degree of authenticity associated with the post by calculating said authenticity score based on a plurality of factors comprising a time of the request, a time of posting the social media post, and at least one additional factor; and
displaying, by a user device: (a) the post content, and (b) the authenticity score,
are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation performed by a human(s), in the human mind, and/or with the aid of pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic network-connected processing devices. That is, other than reciting generic network-connected processing devices nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the generic network-connected processing devices in the context of this claim encompasses a collecting user provided written content, tracking a time factor associated with providing the written content, determining a score based on factors, including a time factor(s), and displaying the score and written content. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a generic network-connected processing devices, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” groupings of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements – generic network-connected processing devices to receive and display information, as well as performing operations that a human can perform in their mind and/or pen and paper, i.e. determining a score. The generic network-connected processing devices in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic network-connected processing devices can perform the insignificant extra solution steps of receiving and displaying information (See MPEP 2106.05(g) while also reciting that the generic network-connected processing devices are merely being applied to perform the steps that can be performed by a human(s), in the human mind, and/or with the aid of pen and paper; "[use] of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.” Therefore, according to the MPEP, this is not solely limited to computers but includes other technology that, recited in an equivalent to “apply it,” is a mere instruction to perform the abstract idea on that technology (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic network-connected processing devices.
Accordingly, these 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. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using generic network-connected processing devices to perform the steps of:
Claim 1:
displaying, to a post author, a request to submit a post within a fixed, system-determined period of time;
receiving, from the post author in response to the request and within the system-determined period of time, a social media post comprising post content;
determining a post authenticity score indicative of a degree of authenticity associated with the post by calculating said authenticity score based on one or more factors, wherein the step of determining a post authenticity score comprises evaluating a duration of time between a time of the request and a time at which the post author submits the post content in response thereto; and
displaying, by a user device: (a) the post content, and (b) the authenticity score
Claim 13:
displaying, to a post author, a request to submit a post;
receiving, from the post author in response to the request, a social media post comprising post content;
determining a post authenticity score indicative of a degree of authenticity associated with the post by calculating said authenticity score based on a plurality of factors comprising a time of the request, a time of posting the social media post, and at least one additional factor; and
displaying, by a user device: (a) the post content, and (b) the authenticity score,
amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Additionally:
Claims 2, 3, 4 are directed towards the extra-solution activity of displaying information and describing the information.
Claim 5 is directed towards reciting generic technology at a high level of generality to perform the human activity of determining a score based on collected information/rule(s).
Claim 6 is directed towards reciting generic technology at a high level of generality to perform the human activity of determining a score based on collected information, as well as the extra-solution activities of transmitting information for the intended purpose of displaying information.
Claims 7, 8, 9 are directed towards performing the human activity of determining a score, which is based on collected information/rule(s).
Claim 10 is directed towards the extra-solution activity of displaying information and describing the information.
Claim 11 is directed towards the extra-solution activity of displaying information and describing the information, as well as the human activity of selecting information.
Claim 12 is directed towards the human activity of selecting information and collecting and comparing information and, based on a rule(s), identify options, in this case, potential dating matches.
Claims 26, 28 are directed towards descriptive subject matter describing information that the authenticity score is based upon or comprised of, as well as “Mathematical Concepts”.
Claim 27 is directed towards descriptive subject matter describing what comprises the additional factor and a rule”.
The remaining claims recite subject matter already discussed above.
In summary, the dependent claims are simply directed towards providing additional descriptive factors that are considered for managing and assessing user provided written content associated with human relationships. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1, 3, 6 – 14, 16, 18 – 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bright et al. (US Patent 9,424,612 B1) in view of Gerth et al. (US Patent 10,992,631 B1).
In regards to claims 1, 13, Bright discloses (Claim 1) a method for a social networking platform to display a social media post solicited from a post author via a request from a third party to share among one or more other users, comprising; (Claim 13) a method for a social networking platform to display a social media post solicited from a post author via a request from a third party to share among one or more other users, comprising:
executing instructions on one or more network-connected processing devices that, when executed by the one or more processing devices, cause the one or more processing devices to perform the following operations (Col. 3 Lines 45 – 52 “The user device 110 can execute an application, for example, a browser application that allows a user of the user device 110 to interact with the social networking system 130. The user device 110 is configured to communicate with the external system 120 and the social networking system 130 via the network 152, which may comprise any combination of local area and/or wide area networks, using wired and/or wireless communication systems.”):
In regards to:
displaying, to a post author, a request to submit a post […];
(Claim 1) receiving, from the post author in response to the request […], a social media post comprising post content
(Claim 13) receiving, from the post author in response to the request […], a social media post comprising post content
(Col. 5 Lines 60 – 64 “User-generated content may include anything a user can add, upload, send, or “post” to the social networking system 130. For example, a user communicates posts to the social networking system 130 from a user device 110.”);
In regards to:
(Claim 1) determining a post authenticity score indicative of a degree of authenticity associated with the post by calculating said authenticity score based on one or more factors, […]
(Claim 13) determining a post authenticity score indicative of a degree of authenticity associated with the post by calculating said authenticity score based on a plurality of factors comprising […] at least one additional factor
(Col. 1 Lines 58 – 65 “…the first reputation score may be based on content posted by the first account …”;
Col. 11 Lines 63 – 65 “…the reputation of an account user and the authenticity of the account may be modeled by the social networking system 130 as at least one score.”); and
displaying, by a user device: (a) the post content, and (b) the authenticity score (Col. 4 Lines 12 – 14 “…the browser application 112 displays the identified content using the format or presentation…”;
Col. 5 Lines 60 – 64 “User-generated content may include anything a user can add, upload, send, or “post” to the social networking system 130. For example, a user communicates posts to the social networking system 130 from a user device 110.”;
Col. 10 Lines 2 – 4 “These characteristics may be leveraged to quantify and publicize the “reputation” of a user in his social network.”).
Bright discloses a system and method to quantify the reputation/authenticity/credibility of a user of a social networking platform and assigning a score to the user. Although Bright discloses that the score is based on various factors, Bright does not disclose all possible factors that can affect a user’s reputation/authenticity/credibility, such as, requesting and receiving a post within a time period.
To be more specific, Bright fails to explicitly disclose:
displaying, to a post author, a request to submit a post within a fixed, system-determined period of time;
(Claim 1) receiving, from the post author in response to the request and within the system-determined period of time, a social media post comprising post content
(Claim 13) receiving, from the post author in response to the request and within the system-determined period of time, a social media post comprising post content
(Claim 1) determining a post authenticity score indicative of a degree of authenticity associated with the post by calculating said authenticity score based on one or more factors, wherein the step of determining a post authenticity score comprises evaluating a duration of time between a time of the request and a time at which the post author submits the post content in response thereto
(Claim 13) determining a post authenticity score indicative of a degree of authenticity associated with the post by calculating said authenticity score based on a plurality of factors comprising a time of the request, a time of posting the social media post, and at least one additional factor
However, Gerth, which also directed towards analyzing and scoring user provided content in a social networking platform, further teaches a system-determined period of time to and from a post author within a system-determined period of time. Gerth teaches that collecting and analyzing information pertaining to how long it took to request and receive a post allows for the system to better assess the interaction a user has with the platform with regards to how long it took to receive a post to determine how well a user is interacting with other users, whether a response was provided timely, whether an urgent request was addressed timely, how long it took to provide a response, and etc. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious that including this additional factor would only increase the accuracy of the assessment and provide a better picture of a user’s reputation/authenticity/credibility.
(For support see: Col. 3 Lines 50 – 61; Col. 4 Lines 23 – 28)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate into the social networking platform user reputation/authenticity/credibility evaluation system and method of Bright with the ability to consider time to receive a request from a user, as taught by Gerth, because this allows for a better evaluation of the interaction that a user within the social networking platform has with the platform and/or other users.
In regards to claims 3, 16, the combination of Bright and Gerth discloses the method of claim 1 (the method of claim 13), wherein the step of displaying comprises: displaying the post content with stylization indicative of the authenticity score (Bright – Col.14 Lines 30 – 39 “the social networking system 130 may maintain a series of tiers on which user accounts are kept based on their scores ... The various tiers may correspond to varying levels of certainty that the account is authentic or a fake, or varying levels of interest and expertise in different fields”).
In regards to claims 6, 19, the combination of Bright and Gerth discloses the method of claim 1 (the method of claim 13), wherein the step of determining a post authenticity score is performed by a network server upon receiving the post content; and the authenticity score is subsequently transmitted to the user device for display (Bright – Col. 13 Lines 2 – 4 “at block 208, the social networking system 130 determines whether the account has met a criterion for authenticity”; Col. 10 Lines 9 – 10 “The social networking system 130 may quantify and publicize the user's reputation”).
In regards to claims 7, 20, the combination of Bright and Gerth discloses the method of claim 1 (the method of claim 13), further comprising determining a user profile-level authenticity score associated with the post author (Bright – Col. 11 Lines 63 – 65 “the reputation of an account user and the authenticity of the account may be modeled by the social networking system 130 as at least one score”).
In regards to claims 8, 21, the combination of Bright and Gerth discloses the method of claim 7 (the method of claim 20), wherein the user profile-level authenticity score is based at least in part upon a degree of authenticity historically associated with posts by the post author (Bright – Col. 23 Lines 1 – 7 “Any suitable technique for accessing the user's browsing history or content posted by users on third party portals may be used. The social networking system 130 may process this information by determining the subject matter of sites visited by a user, and the content the user generated on them, and boost the reputation score of the user's account for the corresponding category”).
In regards to claims 9, 22, the combination of Bright and Gerth discloses the method of claim 8 (the method of claim 11), wherein the user profile-level authenticity score is determined based on a plurality of post-level authenticity scores for posts previously created by the post author (Bright – Col. 12 Lines 51 – 59 “the social networking system 130 receives an activity associated with the account. The activity may be, for example, the addition of a friend, a status update, the uploading of a profile picture, an interaction with another user, creation of content, or. any other type of activity. Any Suitable activity may be used. The activity may originate from the account or from another account, such as, for example, the account of a friend. At block 204, the social networking system 130 adjusts the account score based on the activity”).
In regards to claims 10, 23, the combination of Bright and Gerth discloses the method of claim 1 (the method of claim 13), in which the step of displaying comprises: displaying the post content within a feed of posts, the feed containing posts selected based on factors comprising the authenticity score (Bright – Col. 10 Lines 9 – 30 “The social networking system 130 may quantify and publicize the user's reputation as a camera expert to all of his friends or to the social network at large. This functionality allows users who do not frequently interact with the camera expert or his friends to learn of the camera expert's reputation and benefit from his expertise. Alternatively, the user may acquire a negative reputation if he frequently posts content that is seen as irrelevant or inane. For example, a user who frequently posts camera-related content that is viewed as unhelpful, misleading, or incorrect may come to be seen by his fellow users as an unreliable or untrust worthy source of information on cameras. The social networking system may determine a user's reputation by seeking feedback from other users, such as prompts to rate another user's reputation in a particular field or ballots asking users to identify who among them has the best reputation in a particular field. Thus, an automated process that quantifies and continuously updates a user's reputation from the time that his account was created can allow the social networking system 130 to assist users in identifying friends who post insightful content or have expertise in certain fields, Subjects, topics, or areas of interest.”).
In regards to claims 11, 24, the combination of Bright and Gerth discloses the method of claim 1 (the method of claim 13), further comprising: selecting, by the social media platform, one or more users other than the post author for display of the post content in a content feed based at least in part upon the authenticity score (Bright – Col. 10 Lines 25 – 30 “Thus, an automated process that quantifies and continuously updates a user's reputation from the time that his account was created can allow the social networking system 130 to assist users in identifying friends who post insightful content or have expertise in certain fields, subjects, topics, or areas of interest”).
In regards to claims 12, 25, the combination of Bright and Gerth discloses the method of claim 7 (the method of claim 20), further comprising:
selecting, by the social networking platform, one or more other users for interaction based at least in part upon the user profile-level authenticity score (Bright – Col. 10 Lines 25 – 30 “Thus, an automated process that quantifies and continuously updates a user's reputation from the time that his account was created can allow the social networking system 130 to assist users in identifying friends who post insightful content or have expertise in certain fields, Subjects, topics, or areas of interest”);
wherein the social networking platform comprises an online dating platform, and the step of selecting one or more other users for interaction comprises prioritizing profiles for potential matching based at least in part upon user profile-level authenticity scores associated with each profile (Bright – Col. 4 Lines 47 – 54 “The social networking system 130 comprises one or more computing devices storing a social network, or a 'social graph, including a plurality of users, and providing users of the social network with the ability to communicate and inter act with other users of the social network. Users may join the social networking system 130 and then add connections to any number of other users of the social networking system 130 to whom they desire to be connected”; Col. 4 Lines 59 – 60 “…automatically created by the social networking systems 130 based on common characteristics of the users.”).
In regards to claim 14, the combination of Bright and Gerth discloses the method of claim 13, wherein the at least one additional factor for determining a post authenticity score is determined based on an amount of time remaining, at the time of posting, in a system-determined period of time provided for the post author to submit a post (Bright – Col. 1 Lines 58 – 65; Col. 11 Lines 63 – 65 “…the first reputation score may be based on content posted by the first account … the reputation of an account user and the authenticity of the account may be modeled by the social networking system 130 as at least one score.”
Gerth – Col. 3 Lines 50 – 61; Col. 4 Lines 23 – 28 Gerth, which also directed towards analyzing and scoring user provided content in a social networking platform, further teaches a system-determined period of time to a post author and from a post author within a system-determined period of time. Gerth teaches that collecting and analyzing information pertaining to how long it took to request and receive a post allows for the system to better assess the interaction a user has with the platform with regards to how long it took to receive a post to determine how well a user is interacting with other users, whether a response was provided timely, whether an urgent request was addressed timely, how long it took to provide a response, and etc. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious that including this additional factor would only increase the accuracy of the assessment and provide a better picture of a user’s reputation/authenticity/credibility.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate into the social networking platform user reputation/authenticity/credibility evaluation system and method of Bright with the ability to consider time to receive a request from a user, as taught by Gerth, because this allows for a better evaluation of the interaction that a user within the social networking platform has with the platform and/or other users.).
In regards to claim 26, the combination of Bright and Gerth discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the authenticity score is determined based at least in part upon a percentage of the fixed, system-determined period of time that has elapsed, or that remains, at a time at which the post content is captured or submitted by the post author (Bright – Col. 1 Lines 58 – 65; Col. 11 Lines 63 – 65 “…the first reputation score may be based on content posted by the first account … the reputation of an account user and the authenticity of the account may be modeled by the social networking system 130 as at least one score.”
Gerth – Col. 3 Lines 50 – 61; Col. 4 Lines 23 – 28 wherein Gerth, which also directed towards analyzing and scoring user provided content in a social networking platform, further teaches a system-determined period of time to and from a post author within a system-determined period of time. Gerth teaches that collecting and analyzing information pertaining to how long it took to request and receive a post allows for the system to better assess the interaction a user has with the platform with regards to how long it took to receive a post to determine how well a user is interacting with other users, whether a response was provided timely, whether an urgent request was addressed timely, how long it took to provide a response, and etc. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious that including this additional factor would only increase the accuracy of the assessment and provide a better picture of a user’s reputation/authenticity/credibility.
The Examiner asserts that Gerth tracks how long it took to request and receive a post and that this is used to evaluate the poster. As a result, because the poster is being evaluated on how fast they are able to provide a response the Examiner asserts that this would obviously result in the scoring to be a measure of percentage time it took to provide a response. That is to say, to determine the user’s performance the action taken within a period of time must be compared to an overall time to determine if they are performing optimally or not and because it is with reference to an overall time then it stands to reason that the time it took is a percentage of the overall time or evaluation time metric.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate into the social networking platform user reputation/authenticity/credibility evaluation system and method of Bright with the ability to consider time to receive a request from a user, as taught by Gerth, because this allows for a better evaluation of the interaction that a user within the social networking platform has with the platform and/or other users.).
In regards to claim 27, the combination of Bright and Gerth discloses the method of claim 13, wherein the at least one additional factor comprises a duration of a system-determined period of time provided for the author to submit a post responsive to the request (Bright – Col. 1 Lines 58 – 65; Col. 11 Lines 63 – 65 “…the first reputation score may be based on content posted by the first account” … “the reputation of an account user and the authenticity of the account may be modeled by the social networking system 130 as at least one score.”
Gerth – Col. 3 Lines 50 – 61; Col. 4 Lines 23 – 28 wherein Gerth, which also directed towards analyzing and scoring user provided content in a social networking platform, further teaches a system-determined period of time to and from a post author within a system-determined period of time. Gerth teaches that collecting and analyzing information pertaining to how long it took to request and receive a post allows for the system to better assess the interaction a user has with the platform with regards to how long it took to receive a post to determine how well a user is interacting with other users, whether a response was provided timely, whether an urgent request was addressed timely, how long it took to provide a response, and etc. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious that including this additional factor would only increase the accuracy of the assessment and provide a better picture of a user’s reputation/authenticity/credibility.
The Examiner asserts that Gerth tracks how long it took to request and receive a post and that this is used to evaluate the poster. As a result, because the poster is being evaluated on how fast they are able to provide a response the Examiner asserts that this would obviously result in the scoring to be a measure of percentage time it took to provide a response. That is to say, to determine the user’s performance the action taken within a period of time must be compared to an overall time to determine if they are performing optimally or not and because it is with reference to an overall time then it stands to reason that the time it took is a percentage of the overall time or evaluation time metric.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate into the social networking platform user reputation/authenticity/credibility evaluation system and method of Bright with the ability to consider time to receive a request from a user, as taught by Gerth, because this allows for a better evaluation of the interaction that a user within the social networking platform has with the platform and/or other users.).
In regards to claim 28, the combination of Bright and Gerth discloses the method of claim 13, wherein calculating said authenticity score comprises applying a plurality of system-defined time thresholds to a duration between the time of the request and the time of posting, with differing authenticity score values associated with respective time thresholds (Gerth – Col. 3 Lines 50 – 61; Col. 4 Lines 23 – 28 wherein Gerth, which also directed towards analyzing and scoring user provided content in a social networking platform, further teaches a system-determined period of time to and from a post author within a system-determined period of time. Gerth teaches that collecting and analyzing information pertaining to how long it took to request and receive a post allows for the system to better assess the interaction a user has with the platform with regards to how long it took to receive a post to determine how well a user is interacting with other users, whether a response was provided timely, whether an urgent request was addressed timely, how long it took to provide a response, and etc. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious that including this additional factor would only increase the accuracy of the assessment and provide a better picture of a user’s reputation/authenticity/credibility.
The Examiner asserts that Gerth tracks how long it took to request and receive a post and that this is used to evaluate the poster. As a result, because the poster is being evaluated on how fast they are able to provide a response the Examiner asserts that this would obviously result in the scoring to be a measure of percentage time it took to provide a response. That is to say, to determine the user’s performance the action taken within a period of time must be compared to an overall time to determine if they are performing optimally or not and because it is with reference to an overall time then it stands to reason that the time it took is a percentage of the overall time or evaluation time metric.
This, in turn, would result in having different levels of scoring thresholds, tiers, or the like. Moreover, the limitation is broad enough to cover the interpretation of a first score being 0 for failing to provide a response within an expected time frame and 100 for providing a response within the expected time frame.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate into the social networking platform user reputation/authenticity/credibility evaluation system and method of Bright with the ability to consider time to receive a request from a user, as taught by Gerth, because this allows for a better evaluation of the interaction that a user within the social networking platform has with the platform and/or other users.).
______________________________________________________________________
Claims 2, 4, 15, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bright et al. (US Patent 7,424,612 B1) in view of Gerth et al. (US Patent 10,992,631 B1) in further view of Lawyer (US PGPub 2009/0157490 A1).
In regards to claims 2, 15, the combination of Bright and Gerth discloses a system and method for quantifying a user’s reputation/authenticity/credibility. Although the combination of Bright and Gerth discloses that the reputation/authenticity/credibility is quantified, i.e. score, the combination of Bright and Gerth fails to explicitly disclose displaying the score proximate to the post content.
To be more specific, the combination of Bright and Gerth fails to explicitly disclose:
the method of claim 1 (the method of claim 13), wherein the step of displaying comprises: displaying a numeric authenticity score proximate the post content.
However, Lawyer, which also directed towards analyzing and scoring user provided content in a social networking platform, further teaches, “The contributor's online content is published online for display on one or more computers with the contributor's name and authentication score. … a representation of the authentication score is displayed. Some illustrative examples of which include a graphical badge shown along with, the contributor's name or a number of stars.” One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to not only calculate a score, but to display the score because this can influence the user’s credibility factor, which is important to other users who are evaluating the user.
(For support see: ¶ 114, 115, 121, 126, 128, 131, 132, 140)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate into the user reputation/authenticity/credibility evaluation system and methods of the combination of Bright and Gerth with the ability to display a numeric authenticity score proximate the post content, as taught by Lawyer, because this can influence the user’s credibility factor, which is important to other users who are evaluating the user.
In regards to claims 4, 17, the combination of Bright and Gerth discloses a system and method for quantifying a user’s reputation/authenticity/credibility. Although the combination of Bright and Gerth discloses that the reputation/authenticity/credibility is quantified, i.e. score, the combination of Bright and Gerth fails to explicitly disclose displaying the score proximate to the post content.
To be more specific, the combination of Bright and Gerth fails to explicitly disclose:
the method of claim 1 (the method of claim 13), wherein the step of displaying comprises: displaying a graphical indicium indicative of authenticity score proximate the post content.
However, Lawyer, which also directed towards analyzing and scoring user provided content in a social networking platform, further teaches, “The contributor's online content is published online for display on one or more computers with the contributor's name and authentication score. … a representation of the authentication score is displayed. Some illustrative examples of which include a graphical badge shown along with, the contributor's name or a number of stars.” One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to not only calculate a score, but to display the score because this can influence the user’s credibility factor, which is important to other users who are evaluating the user.
(For support see: ¶ 114, 115, 121, 126, 128, 131, 132, 140)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate into the user reputation/authenticity/credibility evaluation system and methods of the combination of Bright and Gerth with the ability to display a graphical indicium indicative of authenticity score proximate the post content, as taught by Lawyer, because this can influence the user’s credibility factor, which is important to other users who are evaluating the user.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim Objections
The objection to the claims has been withdrawn in light of the applicant’s remarks received on 8/25/2026.
Rejection under 35 USC 101
The rejection under 35 USC 101 has been maintained.
A:
First, with regards to “well-understood, routine, and conventional”, the Examiner asserts that no such statement was made in the rejection and, therefore, the requirements of Berkheimer do not apply.
Second, with regards to “Mental Processes”, the Examiner asserts that the rejection is and was never based on “Mental Processes”, but “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities”. As a result, the Examiner asserts that the applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive and moot.
Third, Examiner 37 does not apply because the claimed invention is not concerned with improving technology, resolving an issue that arose in technology, or deeply rooted in technology, but is, in fact, directed towards mitigating risk and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, including social activities. This is further evidenced by ¶ 1 of the applicant’s specification.
Fourth, the Examiner asserts that simply reciting generic technology at a high level of generality and applying it to the abstract idea is not an improvement to technology, resolving an issue with technology, or deeply rooted in technology. Moreover, Desjardins does not apply because, again, the claimed invention is not improving any technology, resolving an issue that arose in any technology, or deeply rooted in any technology, let alone, improving, resolving an issue, or deeply rooted in machine learning/artificial intelligence.
B:
The Examiner asserts that the claimed invention is, indeed, directed towards “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” because it is directed towards mitigating risk and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, including social activities, as admitted by ¶ 1 and the Background and Summary of the applicant’s specification. Further still, the claimed invention explicitly recites that the invention is directed towards a dating platform, wherein dating between humans falls under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities”. The claimed invention is also directed towards mitigating risk because it is collecting and analyzing information about people to determine their level of authenticity so as mitigate a user’s risk to their reputation while also protecting others risk with regards to interacting with other users (¶ 101 of the applicant’s specification).
The Examiner asserts that the “time” element of the claimed invention serves as nothing more than a description of a rule, metric, rubric, or the like that is utilized to evaluate a user’s authenticity. This rule is nothing more than what the applicant believes, in their mind and in their opinion, is the “best” factor when determining whether a human is authentic or not.
Moreover, the Examiner questions whether the claimed invention is also now directed towards “Mathematical Concepts” because the applicant argues, “the platform calculates the score from machine-recorded times; and a user device displays the post and score.” The additional analysis was and has not been provided because the claimed invention does not explicitly recite any calculations, however, based on the applicant’s arguments, it appears that the claimed invention could fall under this additional bucket, which further supports that the claimed invention and intended invention are, indeed, directed towards an abstract idea.
C:
As has been discussed above, the claimed invention is not improving technology, resolving an issue that arose in technology, nor is it deeply rooted in technology. Moreover, CoreWirless (as well as Example 37) does not apply because the claimed invention is not directed towards technological improvements in graphical user interface (GUI) technology nor how improving upon how a human fundamentally interacts with a GUI or GUI elements. The claimed invention is directed towards collecting, analyzing, and organizing information, as well as describing a rule, and based on the analysis presenting organized information to a user, in this case, assessing a received user post with a time factor to determine (calculate) an authenticity score. These are not improvements to technology, resolutions that arise in technology, or deeply rooted in technology, but evaluating human provided content against some rubric to mitigate their reputation risk or risk with others interacting with the human, as well as managing social interactions, especially since claim 12 (as well as the applicant’s specification) explicitly recites that the information is to be used to manage dating between humans.
DDR Holdings does not apply because the claimed invention is not concerned with filtering nor providing a technological solution to resolve issues that computing devices face when receiving a plurality of queries and having to provide a response within a reasonable amount of time while also alleviating processing burdens of computing devices.
McRo does not apply because it is not directed towards lip synchronization, resolving an issue that arose in lip synchronization, or any level of technological improvements or resolutions.
Example 42 does not apply because the claimed invention is not concerned with providing a technological solution to how non-standardized information is converted to standardized information or how information is transmitted in a network.
The Examiner asserts MPEP § 2106.05 states that “displaying” information is, indeed, an extra-solution activity. The claimed invention is not directed towards providing technological improvements or solutions to improving upon display technology, but simply describing the type of information that is being displayed.
D:
With regards to “well-understood, routine, and conventional”, the Examiner asserts that no such statement was made in the rejection and, therefore, the requirements of Berkheimer do not apply.
E:
The Examiner asserts that the applicant’s arguments are conclusory statements that fail to specifically point out where the Examiner has erred in the rejection, as well as failing to point out what specific elements of the claimed invention overcome the rejection provided under 35 USC 101 and why. As such, since the applicant has failed to point out the supposed errors in the Examiner’s rejection, the provided remarks do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b). Moreover, the Examiner asserts that the applicant’s arguments are based on the same logic found in previous arguments, which have been discussed above and are incorporated, herein.
Rejection under 35 USC 103
The applicant argues:
“Applicant respectfully traverses. The rejection fails for at least three independent reasons: (A) Gerth does not disclose or suggest the timing limitations for which it is cited; (B) Bright does not disclose or suggest a post-level authenticity score, or the display of any score, much less display of a post together with its score; and (C) the proffered combination rationale cannot bridge those gaps.”
However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding Points A & C
The applicant argues that Gerth does not disclose a social media posting system at all because it is a customer-service quality-assurance tool. “Moreover, grafting Gerth’s employee-service-quality review onto Bright’s fake-account detection yields is a logical non-sequitur.”
However, the Examiner asserts that Gerth is, indeed, directed towards a social network platform because it is directed to a system and method of analzying social interactions between users. Specifically, Gerth teaches:
“Systems and methods provide quality analysis related to member service representatives and interactions communicating with users over social media networks.”
(Abstract)
“The subject matter of this disclosure generally relates to electronic communications, and more particularly toward evaluating electronic communications over social network channels according to one or more criteria.”
(Technical Field)
“It would accordingly benefit service providers to develop techniques for evaluating interactions over social media channels to ensure a high level of service across all channels and platforms, message and service consistency, proper handling of complex and personal issues, adherence to protocols, and exercise of other controls based on the organization and situation.”
“In an embodiment, a system includes a social quality review platform, comprising a social network interface module configured to receive interaction data from at least one social network and a scoring module configured to generate an interaction quality score between a member services representative and a social media entity based on the interaction data and one or more social scoring criteria.”
“In an embodiment, a method comprises identifying a social communication between a member services representative and an entity over a social network, gathering interaction data from the social communication, and generating a plurality of social quality scores based on social scoring criteria. The plurality of social quality scores are grouped according to tone and execution. The plurality of social quality scores grouped according to tone include an intelligence score, a warmth score, an authenticity score, and a stability score. Also, the plurality of social quality scores grouped according to execution include a discipline score and a completeness score.”
(Summary)
Processor 302 may be capable of performing functions associated with aspects described herein. For example, processor 302 may be capable of, in conjunction with any other portion of device 300, managing social media communications as described herein.
(Col. 8 Lines 12 – 16)
“FIG. 5 illustrates an example methodology 500 for providing an interaction quality score. Methodology 500 starts at 502 and proceeds to 504 where a social interaction between a member services representative and an entity on a social media network is identified. Based on the identification and ongoing conversation, interaction data is gathered. Analysis of the interaction data can occur on an ongoing, real-time basis, at particular points during the interaction, or at the conclusion of the interaction. Based on the interaction data and social scoring criteria, an interaction quality score can be generated at 506. In some embodiments, at 508, the interaction quality score, or a report based thereon, can be provided to a user at 508. Thereafter, at 510, methodology 500 ends.”
(Col. 11 Lines 20 – 33)
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). It has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of applicant’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Further, in response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Here, Gerth is directed towards the same field of endeavor, as well as providing a solution to the need of determining the reputation of a social network user based on various factors, such as, but not limited to, response time. Gerth teaches, “In embodiments, interaction data can include metrics in addition to the messages themselves, such as response time.” (Col. 4 Lines 25 – 27) Gerth further teaches that various factors are collected in order to facilitate this determination. Specifically, Gerth teaches, “Interaction database 116 can store information according to a variety of fields, including MSR, customer, group, line of business, issue/topic or question, time, channel, social network, urgency, escalation, quality score (discussed elsewhere herein), date, time, duration, or variants or plurals thereof.” (Col. 3 Lines 57 – 62) This position is further supported by Col. 5 Lines 42 – 64; Col. 11 Lines 26 – 33, 46 – 52; Col. 12 Lines 7 – 11.
Further still, one of ordinary skill in the art would have further been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Gerth into the system and method of Bright because Gerth is also concerned with dertermining authenticity. Gerth teaches, “(24) Authenticity module 136 determines whether an interaction has a genuine, non-scripted, and open-ended conversation to convey honesty and trustworthiness. Reliance on facts, proof, and delivering on representations influences a score developed by authenticity module 136. Honesty, transparency, openness, directness, and truthfulness improve authenticity scores, as do supporting statements with proof points (from, e.g., policies, organizational websites, account details, et cetera). Quantification, or identification of a quality level, by authenticity module 136 can rely on scripts, word recognition (individually or in phrases), real-time user responses, survey responses, natural language processing, artificial intelligence or machine learning, et cetera, in conjunction with definitions database 118 or using separate functionality.” (Col. 5 Lines 7 – 20)
The Examiner asserts that, similar to Bright, Gerth is also directed towards a system and method that collects and analyzes performance data of a user in a social network environment to determine a user’s reptuation, authenticity, credibility, or the like. The sole difference between Bright and the claimed invention is that Bright does not explicitly disclose whether it is well-known or obvious in the art to consider time, urgency, response time, or the like as a data point to consider when determining the reputation or performance of a social network user. However, in light of the teachings of Gerth, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious that including this additional factor would only increase the accuracy of the assessment and provide a better picture of a user’s reputation/authenticity/credibility. Gerth teaches that collecting and analyzing information pertaining to how long it took to request and receive a post allows for the system to better assess the interaction a user has with the platform with regards to how long it took to receive a post to determine how well a user is interacting with other users, whether a response was provided timely, whether an urgent request was addressed timely, how long it took to provide a response, and etc.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate into the social networking platform user reputation/authenticity/credibility evaluation system and method of Bright with the ability to consider time to receive a request from a user, as taught by Gerth, because this allows for a better evaluation of the interaction that a user within the social networking platform has with the platform and/or other users.
Regarding Point B
With regards to the applicant’s first point, the Examiner asserts that Bright discloses at Col. 5 Lines 60 – 64 that a user interacts with the system to submit posts or comments. That is to say, the user must select, click, activate, or the like some function, button, icon, or the like, wherein this is the system’s way of soliciting a response. To further support this position, the Examiner refers to Fig. 9B drawing element “Comment”, wherein a hand icon is “hovering” over “Comment”, i.e. the system is requesting a post from a user by presenting a question “Anyone have any recommendations for a good suschi restaurant in Mountain View?”, presenting a field to provide a response “Try XYZ Sushi on Main St. It’s a little pricey, but really good!”, wherein the field is another form of solicitation, and, as discussed above, via the “Comment” element.
With regards to the second point, Bright discloses at Col. 1 Lines 58 – 65 “…the first reputation score may be based on content posted by the first account …”; and Col. 11 Lines 63 – 65 “…the reputation of an account user and the authenticity of the account may be modeled by the social networking system 130 as at least one score.”
With regards to the third point, as well as claims 6, 19, Bright discloses at Col. 10 Lines 2 – 4 “These characteristics may be leveraged to quantify and publicize the “reputation” of a user in his social network.” The Examiner asserts that publicizing information would result in displaying the information, otherwise it would not be available to the public, especially since Bright is providing the information in an online environment for other users.
Additionally, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of applicant’s invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “display of the post together with its score”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The Examiner asserts that this feature is only recited in claims 2, 15, where a separate rejection in view of Lawyer was provided.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 17, filed 8/25/2026, with respect to claims 5, 18 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Bright et al. (US Patent 9,424,612 B1) in view of Gerth et al. (US Patent 10,992,631 B1) has been withdrawn.
With regards to claims 8, 9, 21, 22, Bright discloses that historical information, content posted by users, and online activity associated with the account are utilized to update the reputation score for the user’s account.
With regards to claims 10, 11, 23, 24, with regards to “publicizing”, this has already been addressed above. The Examiner asserts that the fact that the combination of Bright and Gerth does not use the term “feed” is unpersuasive when one of ordinary skill in the art looking upon the teachings the combination of Bright and Gerth discloses equivalent features. The combination of Bright and Gerth discloses that a user’s posts are publicized to a plurality of other users based on the user’s reputation, wherein posts provided and viewable by other users are feeds. Additionally, the combination of Bright and Gerth discloses that users provide feedback to a user’s post, which, in turn, determines whether the user’s posts will appear to other users.
With regards to claims 12, 25, the Examiner asserts that “dating” platform is directed towards descriptive subject matter describing an intent rather than providing additional functionality to the claimed invention. The Examiner asserts that, in light of MPEP § 2111.04 and § 2111.05, the title identifying the social networking platform as “dating platform” is a label for the social networking platform and adds little, if anything, to the claimed invention and thus does not serve to distinguish over the prior art. Any differences related merely to the meaning and information conveyed through labels (i.e., the type of social networking platform), which does not explicitly alter or impact the claimed invention, does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art, in terms of patentability. The combination of Bright and Gerth a system and method for connecting users and allowing them to communicate with one another.
Regarding Point C
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
As was stated in the rejection, the combination of Bright and Gerth discloses a system and method for quantifying a user’s reputation/authenticity/credibility. Although the combination of Bright and Gerth discloses that the reputation/authenticity/credibility is quantified, i.e. score, the combination of Bright and Gerth fails to explicitly disclose displaying the score proximate to the post content.
Accordingly, the Examiner provided Lawyer to teach this missing aspect of the claimed invention. Lawyer, which also directed towards analyzing and scoring user provided content in a social networking platform, further teaches, “The contributor's online content is published online for display on one or more computers with the contributor's name and authentication score. … a representation of the authentication score is displayed. Some illustrative examples of which include a graphical badge shown along with, the contributor's name or a number of stars.” One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to not only calculate a score, but to display the score because this can influence the user’s credibility factor, which is important to other users who are evaluating the user.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate into the user reputation/authenticity/credibility evaluation system and methods of the combination of Bright and Gerth with the ability to display a numeric authenticity score proximate the post content, as taught by Lawyer, because this can influence the user’s credibility factor, which is important to other users who are evaluating the user.
New claims 26 – 28
The Examiner asserts that the applicant’s arguments are directed towards newly amended limitations and are, therefore, considered moot. However, the Examiner has responded to the newly submitted amendments, which the arguments are directed to, in the rejection above, thereby addressing the applicant’s arguments.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached PTO-892 Notice of References Cited.
Morrison et al. (KR 20260035940; US Patent 11,652778 B2; US Patent 10,652,198 B1: US PGPub 2023/0300101 A1); US Patent 12,063,195 B2); US PGPub 2024/0388558 A1; モリソン、ダニエル (Morrison) JP 2026525893 A) – which discloses most of the instant invention save for the authenticity scoring process
Brannan et al. (US Patent 12,657,636 B2); Occhino et al. (US PGPub 2012/0011202 A1); Saxe et al. (US Patent 8,744,866 B1); Zhou et al. (CN 108292995 A); Zhou et al. (US PGPub 2017/0046346 A1); Deveeka (US PGPub 2012/0290978 A1); Duetta et al. (US PGPub 2018/0109483 A1) – which are directed to systems and methods for managing social networks, reputations, connections, relationships, and//or profiles
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GERARDO ARAQUE JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3747. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-4:30.
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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at 571-270-1833. 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.
GERARDO ARAQUE JR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3629
/GERARDO ARAQUE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629 9/12/2026
Prosecution Insights