Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice to Applicant
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/17/2025 has been entered.
3. The following is a non-Final Office Action. In response to Examiner’s Final Action of 01/14/2025, Applicant amended Claims 1-3 and 5; Claims 4 and 6-11 are as previously presented.
Claims 1-11 are pending in this application and have been rejected below.
Response to Amendment
4. Applicant’s amendments and arguments are acknowledged.
5. The prior Claim Objections withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments.
6. The prior 35 USC §101 rejection maintained despite Applicant’s amendments and arguments.
7. The prior 35 USC §103 rejection withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments, and new 35 USC §103 rejection added.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
8. 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.
9. Claims 1-11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because, although they are drawn to a statutory category of method (process), they are also directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
10. At Step 2A Prong One of the subject matter eligibility analysis, Claim 1 recites A method to schedule .. between a consumer and a service provider .., the method comprising: receiving .. a service provider input .., the service provider input indicating an availability of a particular service provider; generating initial current and future availabilities of the particular service provider based on the service provider input; accessing .. content published by the particular service provider to identify a particular service category corresponding to the particular service provider; .. obtaining a consumer query ..; analyzing the consumer query to identify a plurality of service categories, the plurality of service categories comprising the particular service category, each service category of the plurality of service categories including a plurality of service providers that provide services to the consumer; .. receiving .. a consumer input .. to select the particular service category from the plurality of service categories; determining current and future availabilities of each service provider of the plurality of service providers corresponding to the particular service category, the plurality of service providers corresponding to the particular service category comprising the particular service provider; .. receiving .. a consumer input .. to select an availability corresponding to the particular service provider of the plurality of service providers, which is an abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, including 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), because scheduling a service provider with a consumer is a business process for commercial interactions and business relations and for managing interactions between people; it is also an abstract idea of Mental Processes - concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), because analyzing a consumer query to identify service categories is a process that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed in the mind, since it involves evaluation, judgement or observation. Claim 5 recites a similar abstract idea.
At Step 2A Prong Two of the analysis for independent Claims 1 and 5, the judicial exception (abstract idea) is not integrated into a practical application because the Claims, including additional elements such as a live bi-directional video/audio feed, through a network, by a server computer system via the network, a service provider computer system, online, storing, within a spot database on the server computer system, the particular service category corresponding to the particular service provider, a consumer computer system, displaying the plurality of service categories, displaying the current and future availabilities of the plurality of providers corresponding to the particular service category, establishing an internet protocol packet communication connection, via the network, between the service provider computer system and the consumer computer system to initiate a live bi-directional video/audio feed responsive to the selected availability, individually, and in combination, when viewed as a whole, are not an improvement to a computer or a technology, the claims do not apply the judicial exception with a particular machine, and the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as in the instant claims, is not indicative of integration into a practical application - see MPEP 2106.05(h); adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as in the instant claims, is also not indicative of integration into a practical application - see MPEP 2106.05(f). The Claims are therefore directed to the judicial exception.
At Step 2B of the analysis for independent Claims 1 and 5, the Claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (abstract idea), because these additional elements such as those listed above, individually or in combination, do not recite anything that is beyond conventional and routine use of computers (as evidenced by paragraphs 27-36, 94-95 of the Specification and Figure 1 of the Drawings in the instant Application and court decisions such as buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) discussed at 2106.05(d) of the MPEP), do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, nor do they apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use or technological environment. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as in the instant claims, is not indicative of an inventive concept ("significantly more") - see MPEP 2106.05(h); adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as in the instant claims, is also not indicative of an inventive concept ("significantly more") - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
At Step 2A Prong One, dependent Claims 2-4 and 6-11 incorporate (and therefore recite) the abstract ideas noted in independent Claims 1 and 5 from which they depend, and may further recite extensions of that abstract idea.
At Step 2A Prong Two, dependent Claims 2-4 and 6-11 do not include any additional elements beyond those included in the list above with respect to the independent Claim from which they depend. These dependent Claims therefore do not integrate the judicial exception (abstract idea) into a practical application for the same reasons as stated above at Step 2A Prong Two for the independent Claims, and are therefore directed to the judicial exception.
At Step 2B, dependent Claims 2-4 and 6-11 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (abstract idea), because these additional elements such as those listed above, individually or in combination, do not recite anything that is beyond conventional and routine use of computers (as evidenced by paragraphs 27-36, 94-95 of the Specification and Figure 1 of the Drawings in the instant Application and court decisions such as buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) discussed at 2106.05(d) of the MPEP), do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, nor do they apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use or technological environment. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as in the instant claims, is not indicative of an inventive concept ("significantly more") - see MPEP 2106.05(h); adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as in the instant claims, is also not indicative of an inventive concept ("significantly more") - see MPEP 2106.05(f)..
Therefore, Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-eligible subject matter. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573__ U.S. 2014.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103:
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.
35 U.S.C. 103 forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action.
12. Claims 1-11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nevo (US Patent Publication 20210383445 A1 - hereinafter Nevo) in view of Schoenberg (US Patent Publication 20130325500 A1 - hereinafter Schoenberg) in view of Loeffen (US Patent Publication 20080275741 A1 - hereinafter Loeffen).
13. As per Claim 1, Nevo teaches:
A method to schedule a live bi-directional … /audio feed between a consumer and a service provider through a network [NEVO reads on: Fig. 1, PROBLEM/SERVICE 116, PLUMBING, COMMUNICATION TIME 120, NOW, CONNECT 128, COMMUNICATION OPTIONS 132: CALL; para 33 (providing consumers with quick access to service providers); paras 75-76 (network)], the method comprising: …
… accessing, by the server computer system via the network, online content published by the particular service provider to identify a particular service category corresponding to the particular service provider [NEVO reads on: Fig. 5 (COMPUTING PLATFORM 500); paras 75-76 (computer, server, network)], online content published by the particular service provider to identify a particular service category corresponding to the particular service provider [NEVO reads on: paras 3-5 (browsing the Internet in search for a service provider .. search results are filtered by area, expertise .. entered by the provider himself)]; …
… obtaining, by the server computer system via the network, a consumer query from a consumer computer system [NEVO reads on: para 33, as above; para 36 (FIG. 1 shows user interface 100 displaying a screen for searching a service provider); para 38 (User interface 100 may further include an indication of the problem or required service 116)]; …
Nevo does not explicitly teach, but Schoenberg more explicitly teaches:
... video [SCHOENBERG reads on: Fig. 5B (web page 174, Provider Search, Communication Type 240c, Phone, Video Enabled)] ...
… receiving, by a server computer system via the network, a service provider input from a service provider computer system, the service provider input indicating an availability of a particular service provider [SCHOENBERG reads on: Fig. 1 (server 110, client systems 122, 132; network 140); Fig. 3 (computerized system 110); para 29 (one or more of the service providers 130 provides an indication to the computerized system 110 that the one or more service providers are available); para 44 (provider 130 indicates .. he or she is available)];
generating initial current and future availabilities of the particular service provider based on the service provider input [SCHOENBERG reads on: para 30 (one or more of the service providers 130 provides an indication to the computerized system 110 that the one or more service providers are available to be contacted by consumers 120); para 34 (the system assimilates the discretionary or fractional availability windows of time offered by individual providers); para 45 (the provider is offline but is scheduled to be online at a designated time-point and can pre-schedule engagements for it); para 137 (Scheduling allows providers to update their availability calendar with future times they expect to be available)]; …
analyzing the consumer query to identify a plurality of service categories, the plurality of service categories comprising the particular service category, each service category of the plurality of service categories including a plurality of service providers that provide services to the consumer [SCHOENBERG reads on: para 92 (consumer advisor, assists consumers in determining .. which types of providers to consult; helps orchestrate engagements with the appropriate type of providers is analyzing the consumer query to identify a plurality of service categories); para 95 (information obtained from the intake stage 282 is analyzed 288; suggesting the type of providers most appropriate)];
displaying the plurality of service categories; receiving, by the server computer system via the network, a consumer input from the consumer computer system to select the particular service category from the plurality of service categories [SCHOENBERG reads on: Fig. 5B (Provider Type: OBGYN 240a); para 63 (type 240a .. of the provider); para 91 (consumer redirects an active engagement to another .. provider type); para 92 (types of providers to consult)];
determining current and future availabilities of each service provider of the plurality of service providers corresponding to the particular service category, the plurality of service providers corresponding to the particular service category comprising the particular service provider [SCHOENBERG reads on: para 30 (computerized system 110 includes an availability or presence tracking module 112 for tracking the availability of the service providers 130); para 57 (follow-up engagement at pre-defined schedules or at future time points)];
displaying the current and future availabilities of the plurality of providers corresponding to the particular service category [SCHOENBERG reads on: Fig. 5C (Matching Providers, tools 266, Status: AVAILABLE, Schedule Appt.); para 65 (results are shown on the web page 178; a list 182 of providers is presented)];
receiving, by the server computer system via the network, a consumer input from the consumer computer system to select an availability corresponding to the particular service provider of the plurality of service providers [SCHOENBERG reads on: Fig. 4A (Select Providers 170); Fig. 5D (Wait for Phone Appointment, Wait); para 56]; and
establishing an internet protocol packet communication connection, via the network, between the service provider computer system and the consumer computer system [SCHOENBERG reads on: Fig. 1; para 36 (system 110 facilitates communication between the consumer 120 and provider 130 .. such as Voice over IP)] to
initiate the live bi-directional video/audio feed between the consumer and the particular service provider responsive to the selected availability [SCHOENBERG reads on: Fig. 4A (Establish Engagement 186); Fig. 4B (Carry out Engagement 206); Fig. 5C (Maria Lopez 250, Supports Phone, Web, Video Capable, Connect via Web 266); para 57].
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Nevo to incorporate the teachings of Schoenberg in the same field of endeavor of matching service providers to consumers to include (live bi-directional) video, receiving, by a server computer system via the network, a service provider input from a service provider computer system, the service provider input indicating an availability of a particular service provider; generating initial current and future availabilities of the particular service provider based on the service provider input; analyzing the consumer query to identify a plurality of service categories, the plurality of service categories comprising the particular service category, each service category of the plurality of service categories including a plurality of service providers that provide services to the consumer; displaying the plurality of service categories; receiving, by the server computer system via the network, a consumer input from the consumer computer system to select the particular service category from the plurality of service categories; determining current and future availabilities of each service provider of the plurality of service providers corresponding to the particular service category, the plurality of service providers corresponding to the particular service category comprising the particular service provider; displaying the current and future availabilities of the plurality of providers corresponding to the particular service category; receiving, by the server computer system via the network, a consumer input from the consumer computer system to select an availability corresponding to the particular service provider of the plurality of service providers; and establishing an internet protocol packet communication connection, via the network, between the service provider computer system and the consumer computer system to initiate the live bi-directional video/audio feed between the consumer and the particular service provider responsive to the selected availability. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the service provider matching of Nevo by efficiently matching service providers to consumers. See Schoenberg, Abstract, "Using a brokerage system, a consumer of services is matched with a service provider and a comprehensive health management plan is generated for the consumer during the consumer's interaction with the brokerage system."; Fig. 10, web page 350, Video 352.
Nevo in view of Schoenberg does not explicitly teach, but Loeffen more explicitly teaches:
… storing, within a spot database on the server computer system, the particular service category corresponding to the particular service provider [LOEFFEN reads on: Fig. 6 (system 600); para 28 (identifying service providers, category of service); para 94 (reservation system server 640, reservations database 642); para 98 (reservation system for multiple categories of service providers, reservations database 642); para 99 (reservation system server 640 includes a network interface 710; communicatively coupled to the reservations database 642)]; …
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Nevo in view of Schoenberg to incorporate the teachings of Loeffen in the same field of endeavor of matching service providers to consumers to include storing, within a spot database on the server computer system, the particular service category corresponding to the particular service provider. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the service provider matching of Nevo in view of Schoenberg by efficiently matching service providers to consumers. See Loeffen, Abstract, “The present invention is a method and system for an online reservation system providing services of multiple categories of service providers”.
14. As per Claim 2, Nevo in view of Schoenberg in view of Loeffen teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the displaying the current and future availabilities of the plurality of service providers corresponding to the particular service category [as above, Claim 1] comprises:
Nevo further teaches:
aggregating the availability of each service provider of the plurality of service providers; and displaying the aggregated availabilities [NEVO reads on: Fig. 2, RECOMMENDED SERVICE PROVIDERS, 204, 208, 212, CONNECT 216; para 45 (User interface 200 may show a list of one or more service providers available at the required time)].
15. As per Claim 3, Nevo in view of Schoenberg in view of Loeffen teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the displaying the current and future availabilities of the plurality of service providers [as above, Claim 1] comprises:
Nevo further teaches:
displaying the current and future availability of each service provider of the plurality of service providers [NEVO reads on: Fig. 2, as above, Claim 2; para 45 (a list of one or more service providers available at the required time is the current and future availability of each of the one or more service providers)].
16. As per Claim 4, Nevo in view of Schoenberg in view of Loeffen teaches:
The method of claim 1 [as above, Claim 1] wherein
Nevo does not explicitly teach, but Schoenberg further teaches:
there is no current availability of any of the plurality of service providers [SCHOENBERG reads on: para 33 (Limited by office hours and other patients, providers struggle with the idea of adding another service commitment to their existing workload. Patients sending queries to their providers can not expect an immediate response and are often asked to schedule an appointment for further evaluation)].
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Nevo in view of Schoenberg in view of Loeffen to incorporate the further teachings of Schoenberg in the same field of endeavor of matching service providers to consumers to include there is no current availability of any of the plurality of service providers. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the service provider matching of Nevo in view of Schoenberg in view of Loeffen by efficiently matching service providers to consumers.
17. As per Claim 5, Nevo teaches:
A method to schedule an appointment for a live bi-directional .. audio feed between a consumer and a service provider through a network [NEVO reads on: Fig. 1, paras 33, 75-76 as above, Claim 1], the method comprising: ...
... select an alternative availability corresponding to the particular service provider; and initiating the live bi-directional ... audio feed between the consumer and the particular service provider responsive to the selected alternative availability [NEVO reads on: para 44 (the user indicated that no engagement took place, the system may form communication between the user and another available and complying service provider)].
Nevo does not explicitly teach, but Schoenberg teaches:
... receiving, by a server computer system via the network, a consumer input from the consumer computer system indicating that none of the current and future availabilities of the plurality of service providers including the particular service provider is acceptable [SCHOENBERG reads on: Figs. 1, 3, para 29, as above, Claim 1; para 32 (The client devices 122 and 132 enable the consumers 120 to input and receive information as well as to communicate via video, audio, and/or text with the providers 130); para 33, as above, Claim 4; para 96 (enter the standby list for providers currently not online is none of the current and future availabilities of the plurality of service providers including the particular service provider is acceptable]; and receiving, by the server computer system via the network, a consumer input [SCHOENBERG, as above] to...
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Nevo to incorporate the teachings of Schoenberg in the same field of endeavor of matching service providers to consumers to include receiving a consumer input indicating none of the current and future availabilities of the plurality of service providers including the particular service provider is acceptable. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the service provider matching of Nevo by efficiently matching service providers to consumers.
The remainder of the claim rejected under the same rationale as Claim 1 above.
18. As per Claim 6, Nevo in view of Schoenberg in view of Loeffen teaches:
The method of claim 5 wherein the receiving a consumer input indicates that none of the current and future availabilities of the plurality of service providers is acceptable [as above, Claim 5] further includes:
Nevo further teaches:
receiving a consumer input including a request for alternative availabilities of the plurality of service providers [NEVO reads on: Fig. 4, paras 15, 45, as above, Claim 1; para 44, as above, Claim 5].
19. As per Claim 7, Nevo in view of Schoenberg in view of Loeffen teaches:
The method of claim 6 wherein the consumer input includes a request for alternative availabilities of the plurality of service providers [as above, Claim 6] comprises:
Nevo further teaches:
a financial incentive [NEVO reads on: para 16 (bonuses provided by the service provider such as free of charge service)].
20. As per Claim 8, Nevo in view of Schoenberg in view of Loeffen teaches:
The method of claim 6 [as above, Claim 6] further comprising:
Nevo further teaches:
querying each service provider of the plurality of service providers for the alternative availabilities [NEVO reads on: Fig. 4, paras 15, 44, 45, as above, Claim 6; para 28 (submit a search or a query (request) for a relevant service provider)].
21. As per Claim 9, Nevo in view of Schoenberg in view of Loeffen teaches:
The method of claim 2 [as above, Claim 2] wherein
The remainder of the claim rejected under the same rationale as Claim 4 above.
22. As per Claim 10, Nevo in view of Schoenberg in view of Loeffen teaches:
The method of claim 3 [as above, Claim 3] wherein
The remainder of the claim rejected under the same rationale as Claim 4 above.
23. As per Claim 11, Nevo in view of Schoenberg in view of Loeffen teaches:
The method of claim 7 [as above, Claim 7] further comprising:
The remainder of the claim rejected under the same rationale as Claim 8 above.
Response to Arguments
24. Applicant's arguments filed 04/17/2025 have been fully considered, but they are found not persuasive and/or are moot in light of the new rejections.
25. Applicant argues (at pp. 7-9) that the amended claims are integrated into a practical application at Step 2A Prong Two of the subject matter eligibility analysis (and are therefore patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101) because they reflect “improvement in the technical field of systems for communication for online marketplaces being distributed across a network".
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained in detail at paragraph 10 above in this Office Action, the Claims recite an abstract idea (falling under the abstract idea groupings of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and also of Mental Processes) at Step 2A Prong One; at Step 2A Prong Two, the mere use of a computer system as a tool to implement the abstract idea is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application - see MPEP 2106.05(f); the Claims are therefore directed to the judicial exception, and are thus ineligible for patent under 35 U.S.C. 101.
26. Applicant also argues (at p. 9) that the amended claims are integrated into a practical application by analogy with claim 1 of Example #42 of the subject matter eligibility examples.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the fact pattern in Example #42 (standardization of medical records) is entirely different to that in the instant claims (scheduling of a service).
27. Applicant’s arguments (at pp. 9-10) regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections pertaining to amended claim language are rendered moot in light of the new combination of references incorporating the new reference Loeffen.
Conclusion
28. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARJIT S BAINS whose telephone number is (571)270-0317. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am-6:00pm.
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, Wu Rutao can be reached on (571)272-6045. 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.
/SARJIT S BAINS/Examiner, Art Unit 3623 /RUTAO WU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3623