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 .
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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to the abstract idea of creating a match list of contractors without significantly more. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application not does it include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception
The abstract idea includes the following (the components in addition to the abstract idea are in bold)
a processor;
a communication interface; and
memory storing instructions executable by the processor, the instructions, when
executed, causing the processor to:
receive, via the communication interface, one or more estimate attributes
associated with at least one work item from a communication device, the one or more estimate attributes including a description of materials and services required to complete the at least one work item;
in response to receiving the one or more estimate attributes, translate the materials to a price per square unit for the at least one work item;
receive data associated with a plurality of contractors, wherein the data comprises a list of contractors qualified to perform the at least one work item based on location;
determine one or more contractors of the plurality of contractors qualifies to perform the at least one work item by determining the one or more contractors meets a price requirement based on the price per square unit for the at least one work item and the data associated with the plurality of contractors;
eliminate contractors which are not qualified based on the price requirement from the list of contractors qualified to perform the at least one work
automatically generate a match report including [[a]] the list of contractors qualified to perform the at least one work item; and
transmit the match report in a message via the communication interface to the communication device in response to receiving the one or more estimate attributes.
The additional elements are highlighted above.
under the step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the identified abstract idea to which the claim is directed does not include limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the recited features of the abstract idea are being applied on a computer or computing device or via software programming that is simply being used as a tool ("apply it") to implement the abstract idea. ( See, e.g., MPEP
§2106.05(f)). Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The additional elements are highlighted above, under the step 2B analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something "significantly more" than the recited
abstract idea. (i.e., an innovative concept). Here, the additional elements, such as: a
do not amount to an innovative concept since, as stated above in the step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the claims are simply using the additional elements as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (i.e., "apply it") on a computer or computing device and/or via software programming. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)).
The additional elements are specified at a high level of generality to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05 I.A.);
The claim are expressed in terms of results, devoid of technological details of how these results are achieved. None of the limitations reflects an improvement in the functioning of the hardware, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. As such, the judicial exception is not claimed in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture. In addition, these components do not amount to the application and use of the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
The dependents lack additional elements beyond the those of the representative claim and being further embodiments of the representative claims are rejected for the rationale of that claim rejection.
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) 21-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell Patent Pub 20130282511 hereafter M in view of Cohen, Pat Publication 20144022608, further in view of Serwitz Patent Pub. US-20080263562-A1
As to claims 21,28,35 server, communication system, communication interface and method to perform the following:
receive, via the communication interface, one or more estimate attributes
associated with at least one work item from a communication device, the one or
more estimate attributes including a description of materials and services required
to complete the at least one work item; Mitchell p[0003][0012] [0037] the system then identifies the contractor subscribed to that zip code for cleaning services and obtains their house cleaning pricing profile information. By combining the data entered by the consumer with the contractor's pricing profile, the system calculates a price quote of $50 per cleaning and displays this price quote to the customer.
receive data associated with a plurality of contractors, wherein the data
comprises a list of contractors qualified to perform the at least one work item
based on location; M [0037] the system then identifies the contractor subscribed to that zip code for cleaning services and obtains their house cleaning pricing profile information. By combining the data entered by the consumer with the contractor's pricing profile, the system calculates a price quote of $50 per cleaning and displays this price quote to the customer.
The primary reference fails to expressly teach the following:
in response to receiving the one or more estimate attributes, translate the
materials to a price per square unit for the at least one work item;
determine one or more contractors of the plurality of contractors qualifies
to perform the at least one work item by determining the one or more contractors
meets a price requirement based on the price per square unit for the at least one
work item and the data associated with the plurality of contractors;
eliminate contractors which are not qualified based on the price
requirement from the list of contractors qualified to perform the at least one work automatically generate a match report including [[a]] the list of contractors qualified to perform the at least one work item; and transmit the match report in a message via the communication interface to
the communication device in response to receiving the one or more estimate
attributes.
Cohen teaches of receiving one or more attributes and translating the attributes to standard prices.
[0049] FIG. 2 illustrates how the estimator visualizes, for the user on the Web client or the mobile or tablet application, the photos and the data stored about the photos in the central or distributed server. The data shown is the photo itself, various types of information collected about the photo, such as categorization, location, material costs, furniture costs, etc., and the related products. This information is also stored on the server as separate entities that are linked to the photo. [0050] The user chooses a photo of a kitchen (see FIG. 1). The estimator gives a detailed breakdown of the materials, e.g. volume and prices; cabinet pricing, including countertop, door knobs, shelving; the appliances, e.g. fridge, range, hood, oven, and microwave; lights, e.g. fixtures and switches; and the labor, e.g. laying the floors, installing the cabinets, fabricating the countertop, and installing a panoramic window. The construction time is given, including all the different professionals involved, e.g. general contractor, kitchen installer, and countertop manufacturer. The user can then select and deselect various options based upon relevance to the user's intended project and/or with regard to the user's budget. For example, the user can choose to remove cost of the fridge because it is irrelevant for the project.
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art at the time to have combined the references as they are both directed to marketplaces and the tools therein are used for purpose of facilitating the transaction. Cohen teaches the estimates based on price per square foot are well known and art recognized equivalents to other price ratio but is the “least accurate” for many situations [0008-0011]. As the applicant’s specification adds no alleged improvement to this “translation” process and does not describe how the translation is performed beyond that which is common to those skilled in the art, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to have translated the input of the buyer to a price per square foot of the contractor – as price per square foot has been shown to be an art recognized equivalent to other price matching metrics.
Serwitz teaches to eliminate contractors which are not qualified based on the price
requirement from the list of contractors qualified to perform the at least one work automatically generate a match report including [[a]] the list of contractors qualified to perform the at least one work item; and transmit the match report in a message via the communication interface to
the communication device in response to receiving the one or more estimate
attributes. Serwitz P[0008] [0056][0057] (With the contractor and requestor data bases set up, “the database engine 225 includes instructions executable by the processor 5 to perform a contractor/requestor allocation 360 in dependence on a minimum correspondence of contract service subject matter and a locality 360.” Therefore, by matching one is also eliminating those not matching.
It would have been obvious to combine the teaching with Mitchell as both are directed to providing pricing for services and the like and the use thereof for its intended purpose is obvious.
As to the following claims:
22. (Previously Presented) The server of claim 21, wherein the instructions further cause the processor to receive a pricing for the at least one work item from each of the plurality of contractors, wherein each contractor's pricing for the at least one work item is updateable at any time, wherein each contractor's pricing for the at least one work item comprises an estimated cost of material and an estimated cost of labor for the at least one work item. M [0011]
23. (Currently Amended) The server of claim 22, wherein the instructions further cause the processor to prioritize the one or more contractors based on each contractor's pricing, wherein the match report is generated based on the prioritization. M [0011]
24. (Currently Amended) The server of claim 23, wherein the instructions further cause the processor to identify the plurality of contractors by determining the plurality of contractors are qualified to perform service loss associated with the work item based on an address of the loss M[0049]
25. (Previously Presented) The server of claim 21, wherein the instructions further cause the processor to analyze the at least one work item and determine the at least one work item qualifies for an automatic contractor match. M[0031]
26. (Previously Presented) The server of claim 21, wherein the instructions further cause the processor to notify at least one of the one or more contractors about the determination that the one or more contractors qualify to perform the at least one work item. M[0037]
27. (Currently Amended) The server of claim 26, wherein the instructions further cause the processor to automatically transmit the match report to a communication device in response to the received estimate determine a minimum price per square unit for each of the one or more contractors is lower M [Fig. 2 , 219]
29. (Previously Presented) The communication system of claim 28, wherein communication system receives a pricing for the at least one work item from each of the plurality of contractors, wherein each contractor's pricing for the at least one work item is updateable at any time, wherein each contractor's pricing for the at least one work item comprises an estimated cost of material and an estimated cost of labor for the at least one work item. M [Fig 3]
30. (Currently Amended) The communication system of claim 29, wherein the communication system prioritizes the one or more contractors based on each contractor's pricing, wherein the match report is generated based on the prioritization. M[0041]
31. (Currently Amended) The communication system of claim 30, communication system identifies the plurality of contractors by determining the plurality of contractors are qualified to perform service a loss associated with the work item based on an address of the loss M[Fig 2 / 219]
32. (Previously Presented) The communication system of claim 28, wherein the communication system analyzes the at least one work item and determines the at least one work item qualifies for an automatic contractor match. Fig. 2
33. (Previously Presented) The communication system of claim 28, wherein the communication system notifies at least one of the one or more contractors about the determination that the one or more contractors qualify to perform the at least one work item. M[0031]
Mitchell fails to teach the limitation of claim 34. (Currently Amended) The communication system of claim 33, wherein the communication system determines a minimum price per square unit for each of the one or more contractors is lower than the price per square unit for the at least one work item. It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art at the time to have combined the references as they are both directed to marketplaces and the tools therein are used for purpose of facilitating the transaction. Moreover, Cohen teaches the estimates based on price per square foot are well known and art recognized equivalents to other price ratio but is the “least accurate” for many situations [0008-0011]. As the applicant’s specification adds no alleged improvement to this “translation” process and does not describe how the translation is performed beyond that which is common to those skilled in the art, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to have translated the input of the buyer to a price per square foot of the contractor – as price per square foot has been shown to be an art recognized equivalent to other price matching metrics.
As to claim 36, the method of claim 35, further comprising receiving, by the processor, a pricing for the at least one work item from each of the plurality of contractors, wherein each contractor's pricing for the at least one work item is updateable at any time, wherein each contractor's pricing for the at least one work item comprises an estimated cost of material and an estimated cost of labor for the at least one work item. M [Fig. 3]
As to claim 37. The method of claim 36, further comprising prioritizing, by the processor, the one or more contractors based on each contractor's pricing. M Fig. 2 at 219
38. The method of claim 37, further comprising identifying the plurality of contractors by determining the plurality of contractors are qualified to perform service a loss associated with the work item based on an address of the loss.
39. The method of claim 35, further comprising analyzing, by the processor, the at least one work item and determine the at least one work item qualifies for an automatic contractor match, M[0049]
40. The method of claim 35, further comprising notifying, by the processor, at least one of the one or more contractors about the determination that the one or more contractors qualify to perform the at least one work item. M [Fig. 3]
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 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 10861099. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are commensurate in scope.
Independent claims 21,28, &35
Claim 1 of ‘099 comprises the steps of
more estimate attributes including a description of materials and services required
to complete the at least one work item;
in response to receiving the one or more estimate attributes, translate the
materials to a price per square unit for the at least one work item;
receive data associated with a plurality of contractors, wherein the data
comprises a list of contractors qualified to perform the at least one work item
based on location;
determine one or more contractors of the plurality of contractors qualifies
to perform the at least one work item by determining the one or more contractors
meets a price requirement based on the price per square unit for the at least one
work item and the data associated with the plurality of contractors;
automatically generate a match report including [[a]] the list of contractors qualified to perform the at least one work item; and
transmit the match report in a message via the communication interface to
the communication device in response to receiving the one or more estimate
While claim one does not expressly teach the elimination step,
eliminate contractors which are not qualified based on the price
requirement from the list of contractors qualified to perform the at least one work
the matching engine to determine the one or more contractors also includes those that do not match and thereby eliminates those that do not match.
As to the dependent claims:
22. (Previously Presented) The server of claim 21, wherein the instructions further cause the processor to receive a pricing for the at least one work item from each of the plurality of contractors, wherein each contractor's pricing for the at least one work item is updateable at any time, wherein each contractor's pricing for the at least one work item comprises an estimated cost of material and an estimated cost of labor for the at least one work item. claim 10
23. (Currently Amended) The server of claim 22, wherein the instructions further cause the processor to prioritize the one or more contractors based on each contractor's pricing, wherein the match report is generated based on the prioritization. claim 17
24. (Currently Amended) The server of claim 23, wherein the instructions further cause the processor to identify the plurality of contractors by determining the plurality of contractors are qualified to perform service loss associated with the work item based on an address of the loss claim 17
25. (Previously Presented) The server of claim 21, wherein the instructions further cause the processor to analyze the at least one work item and determine the at least one work item qualifies for an automatic contractor match. Claim 1
26. (Previously Presented) The server of claim 21, wherein the instructions further cause the processor to notify at least one of the one or more contractors about the determination that the one or more contractors qualify to perform the at least one work item. claim 16
27. (Currently Amended) The server of claim 26, wherein the instructions further cause the processor to automatically transmit the match report to a communication device in response to the received estimate determine a minimum price per square unit for each of the one or more contractors is lower Claim 10.
Response to Arguments
The applicant argues that on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting over U.S. Patent No. 10,861,099 that the amendments presented render the double patenting rejections moot. The record is does not include claim amendments.
Under 101, the applicant argues that the claims should be considered patent eligible for reasons of Example 42 of the USPTO's subject matter eligibility guidance. The examiner has considered the argument but finds it unpersuasive as the converting updated information of claim 42 from a non-standardized form to a standardized format is not unlike the claimed limitations. The standardization of claim 42 was as to how it was stored in memory and not the content itself as in the claimed invention.
Under 103, the applicant argues that the prior art alone or in combination fails to teach 1) identifying line items associated with the one or more estimate attributes, 2) accessing a database of known bundled line items to compare the identified line items with the database to identify materials not explicitly identified by the one or more estimated attributes, 3) identifying a quantity for the materials, and determining the price per square unit for the at least one work item based on the quantity for the materials.
The examiner disagrees. In the light of the specification the deficiency is taught obvious by Cohen. The specification reads as follows:
Also in some embodiments, the extraction may comprise identifying one or more tasks covered by the estimate, and comparing materials explicitly identified in the estimate with a stored list of materials corresponding to one or more of the identified tasks. If the estimate does not explicitly identify most or all of the materials on the stored list of materials, then the extraction may further comprise comparing line items with a catalog or database of known bundled line items so as to identify materials needed by an estimate but not explicitly identified. For example, an estimate line item for "installation of roof shingles" may have a corresponding entry in a catalog or database indicating that "installation of roof shingles" will require certain materials, such as tar paper, shingles, staples, nails, and flashing. Thus, the extraction may comprise comparing estimate line items with line items in a catalog or database and, when a match is found, associating material-related information in the catalog or database with the line item in question.
Cohen teaches at [0039] The user computer then calculates estimated labor costs from the square footage and average regional labor rate for flooring contractors from the regional database. The labor rate in the regional database is preferably in the form of average price-per-square foot.
Further Cohen teaches at [0040] These costs are incorporated into the cost estimate model. The application then displays the total cost for the installation in step field 224 and adds the cost to the phase field 226 and total field 228 in the cost estimate window.
Cohen further teaches at [0042] Minor supplies such as nails, studs, hinges, and minor fixtures such as outlet covers that would be too time consuming for the user to select are incorporated into the proposal automatically based on average requirements per square foot stored in the user computer memory or accessed from plan database 40.
And Cohen teaches [0049] FIG. 2 illustrates how the estimator visualizes, for the user on the Web client or the mobile or tablet application, the photos and the data stored about the photos in the central or distributed server. The data shown is the photo itself, various types of information collected about the photo, such as categorization, location, material costs, furniture costs, etc., and the related products. This information is also stored on the server as separate entities that are linked to the photo.
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 RICHARD C WEISBERGER whose telephone number is (571)272-6753. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 10AM-8PM PCT.
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, Mike Anderson can be reached on 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.
/RICHARD C WEISBERGER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693