DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This Office Action is in response to the application filed 26 August 2025. The amendment filed 26 August 2025 amended claims 43, 44, 47, 48, 51, 54, 55, and 56. Claims 43-56 are pending and have been examined. Claims 1-33 were previously canceled, and claims 34-42 are non-elected based on the Requirement for Restriction filed 26 July 2024. The 101 and 112 rejection has been maintained.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 26 August 2025 has been entered.
Examiner’s Note
The Examiner notes that there did not appear to be a response to the 112 rejection below, and as such the rejection has been maintained.
Additionally, with respect to the 101 rejection the Examiner provides the following suggestions; With respect to technical implementation details – that improve computer/network functioning, with respect to narrow to specific technical solution – addressing a technical problem, with respect to claim particular configuration – provide system components beyond generic implementation, and finally with respect to focus on unconventional technical features – this would require further evaluation of the specification.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 26 August 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues on pages 16-17 that “claims 44-53 and 55 and 56 respectively depend, have been amended to specify that the user device of the user obtains a real location of the user of the user device at the time when the user device connects to the application server to enable login by the user. As such, the user location is a real-time location and cannot be a stored location. This relates to operations that cannot be performed by a human in that: (a) the location is obtained by the user device at a particular time to thus provide a real location; and (b) a human being would not be able to obtain this information in real-time using known ways of manual geolocation (e.g., triangulation with respect to landmarks having known longitude and latitude, or the like). Finally, the amended claim language is distinguished from providing a location stored in the user device because it requires that the user device obtain the location at particular time”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to the arguments the Examiner notes that the Applicant’s argument to the claims are patent-eligible is not persuasive. First, obtaining a user’s current geographic location via a user device is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the art. Modern smartphones and computing devices routinely obtain real-time location data through GPS, cellular triangulation, Wi-Fi positioning, or similar technologies, and the claims do not recite any particular unconventional method or configuration for obtaining this location data beyond generic functional language. Second, the mere fact the humans cannot manually perform real-time geolocation does not establish patent eligibility, as this confuses the abstract idea inquiry with basic computer functionality. Computers routinely perform many operations that humans cannot perform manually or cannot perform as quickly (e.g., mathematical calculations, data retrieval, sorting), yet this alone does not render claims patent-eligible. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, 792 F.3d 1363, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not provide significantly more). Third, obtaining real-time location data rather than using stored location data does not transform the generic computer implementation into practical application or inventive concept. The claim still merely uses a conventional feature of user devices (location determination capability) in its ordinary capacity to perform the underlying abstract idea of organizing service consultations. Finally, under Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial expectation into a practical application because they do not improve the functioning of a computer or other technology, but merely use computers as tools to perform the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Similarly, under Step 2B, real-time location acquisition by user devices represents conventional technology applied in conventional manner and thus fails amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the claims remain directed in ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. The rejection is therefore maintained.
The remaining Applicant's arguments filed 26 August 2025 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of new grounds of rejection as necessitated by amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: means of in claims 43-56.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 43-56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) 43-56 as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. The claim(s) 43-56 is/are directed to the abstract idea of selecting suppliers, scheduling meetings, and providing services including transportation. The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Claim(s) (43-56) is/are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Regarding Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes (from the January 2019 §101 Examination Guidelines), claim(s) (43-56) is/are directed to a method, and therefore the claims recites a series of steps and, therefore the claims are viewed as falling in statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong 1
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) 43-56 recite(s) mental process. Specifically, the independent claims 43 recite a mental process as drafted, the claim recites the limitation of creating the proposals and scheduling meetings which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a user device nothing in the claim precludes the determining step from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, but for the user device language, the claim encompasses the user manually the creating of proposals and scheduling meetings. The mere nominal recitation of a generic user device does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. This limitation is a mental process. While the Guidance provides that claims do not recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitations (GPS position calculation, network monitoring, data encryption for communication, rendering images. However with regard to the instant application the Examiner has reviewed the disclosure and determined that the underlying claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and/or with the aid of a pen and paper, and thus it is viewed that the applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, 2) in a computer environment or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept, and therefore is considered to recite a mental process.
Note to the Applicant per the 2019 October Guidance: The 2019 PEG sets forth a test that distills the relevant case law to aid in examination, and does not attempt to articulate each and every decision. As further explained in the 2019 PEG, the Office has shifted its approach from the case-comparison approach in determining whether a claim recites an abstract idea and instead uses enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. The enumerated groupings are firmly rooted in Supreme Court precedent as well as Federal Circuit decisions interpreting that precedent. By grouping the abstract ideas, the 2019 PEG shifts examiners’ focus from relying on individual cases to generally applying the wide body of case law spanning all technologies and claim types. In sum, the 2019 PEG synthesizes the holdings of various court decisions to facilitate examination.
Step 2A Prong 2
Specifically the determined judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer and additionally that data providing, receiving, connecting, indicating, entering, accessing saving, and sending steps required to use the creating step do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity (including post solution activity).
The claim recites the additional element(s): that a user device is used to perform the creating step. The user device steps are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data (the creating of proposals and schedules). This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
The claim recites the additional element(s): providing/receiving a service, connecting to a server, indicating whether the service will be received, entering the information, accessing the consultation, saving and sending the consultation performs the creating step. The providing, receiving, connecting, indication, entering, accessing, saving, and sending steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of managing and proving data for use in the creation step), and amounts to mere data handling, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The user device that performs the creating step is also recited at a high level of generality, and merely automates the creating step. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (the user device).
The Examiner has further determined that the claims as a whole does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application in order to provide an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field. It has been determined that based on the disclosure does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. It has not been provided clearly in the disclosure that the alleged improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art, but is instead in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore does not improve the technology. Second, in the instance, which in this case it is not clear that the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must not reflect the disclosed improvement (the claims must include components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification).
Note to the Applicant from the October 2019 Guidance: Generally, examiners are not expected to make a qualitative judgment on the merits of the asserted improvement. If the examiner concludes the disclosed invention does not improve technology, the burden shifts to applicant to provide persuasive arguments supported by any necessary evidence to demonstrate that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the disclosed invention improves technology. Any such evidence submitted under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132 must establish what the specification would convey to one of ordinary skill in the art and cannot be used to supplement the specification. For example, in response to a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101, an applicant could submit a declaration under § 1.132 providing testimony on how one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the disclosed invention as improving technology and the underlying factual basis for that conclusion.
For further clarification the Examiner points out that the claim(s) 43-56 recite(s) providing/receiving a service, connecting to a server, indicating whether the service will be received, creating the proposals, entering the information, accessing the consultation, saving and sending the consultation which are viewed as an abstract idea in the form of a mental process. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the use of a computer for providing, receiving, connecting, indicating, creating, entering, accessing, saving, and sending which is the abstract idea steps of valuing an idea (using analyzed information to schedule a meeting and create a proposal) in the manner of “apply it”.
Thus, the claims recites an abstract idea directed to a mental process (i.e. to create a proposal and schedule). Using a computer to providing, receiving, connecting, indication, creating, entering, accessing, saving, and sending the data resulting from this kind of mental process merely implements the abstract idea in the manner of “apply it” and does not provide 'something more' to make the claimed invention patent eligible. The claimed limitations of a computing device is not constraining the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and do not provide significantly more.
The create a proposal and schedule would clearly be to a mental activity that a company would go through in order to decide how to create a proposal and a schedule. The specification makes it clear that the claimed invention is directed to the mental activity data gathering and data analysis to determine how to create a proposal and a schedule:
The dependent claims recite elements that narrow the metes and bounds of the abstract idea but do not provide ‘something more’.
The dependent claims do not remedy these deficiencies.
Claim(s) 44 and 55 recite limitations which further limit the claimed analysis of data.
Claims 45-47, 53, and 56 recites limitations directed to claim language viewed insignificantly extra solution activity.
Using a computer to perform the data processing as claimed is merely implementing the abstract idea in the manner of “apply it” and does not provide significantly more. Additionally with respect to the Berkheimer the Examiner points out that the steps of the claim are viewed to be to nothing more than spell out what it means to apply it on a computer and cannot confer patent-eligibility as there are no additional limitations beyond applying an abstract idea, restricted to a computer. As the claims are merely implementing the abstract idea in the manner of “Apply It” the need for a Berkheimer analysis does not apply and is not required. With respect to the currently filed claims the implementing steps can be found in Bui which discloses how the claims alone and in combination are viewed to be well understood, routine and conventional based on point 3 of the Berkheimer memo and subsequent evidence, complying with and providing evidence.
Claims 48-52 recites limitations directed to claim language viewed non-functional data labels.
Thus, the problem the claimed invention is directed to answering the question based on gathered and analyzed information about the scheduling and proposals. This is not a technical or technological problem but is rather in the realm of business scheduling and proposal creation and therefore an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. This is the case because in order for the claims to be viewed as significantly more the claims must incorporate the integral use of a machine to achieve performance of a method, in contrast to where the machine is merely an object on which the method operates, which does not provide significantly more in order for a machine to add significantly more, it must play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed, rather than function solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly. Whether its involvement is extra-solution activity or a field-of-use, i.e., the extent to which (or how) the machine or apparatus imposes meaningful limits on the claim. Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not provide significantly more. Additionally, another consideration when determining whether a claim recites significantly more is whether the claim effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. "[T]ransformation and reduction of an article ‘to a different state or thing’ is the clue to patentability of a process claim that does not include particular machines. All together the above analysis shows there is not improvement in computer functionality, or improvement to any other technology or technical field. The claim is ineligible.
With respect to the Berkheimer as noted above the same analysis applies to the 2B where the claims are viewed as applying it and as such no further analysis is required. However, with respect to the claims that are viewed as extra solution or post solution activity the Examiner notes that the claims are viewed as well-understood, routine, and conventional because a citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s). An appropriate publication could include a book, manual, review article, or other source that describes the state of the art and discusses what is well-known and in common use in the relevant industry.
The dependent claims recite elements that narrow the metes and bounds of the abstract idea but do not provide ‘something more’. Specifically, the dependent claims do not remedy these deficiencies of the independent claims.
With respect to the legal concept of prima facie case being a procedural tool of patent examination, which allocates the burdens going forward between the examiner and the applicant. MPEP § 2106.07 discusses the requirements of a prima facie case of ineligibility. In particular, the initial burden was on the Examiner and believed to be properly provided as to explain why the claim(s) are ineligible for patenting because of the above provided rejection which clearly and specifically points out in accordance with properly providing the requirement satisfying the initial burden of proof based on the Guidance from the United States Patent and Trademark Office and the burden now shifts to the applicant.
Therefore, based on the above analysis as conducted based on the Guidance from the United States Patent and Trademark Office the claims are viewed as a court recognized abstract idea, are viewed as a judicial exception, does not integrate the claims into a practical application, and does not provide an inventive concept, therefore the claims are ineligible.
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 may not be obtained through the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 43-45, and 47-56 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2013/0282511 A1) (hereafter Mitchell) in view of Spielman et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2021/0192663 A1) (hereafter Spielman).
Referring to Claim 43, Mitchell teaches a method for selecting providers, scheduling meetings, and providing/receiving a service in a means of transport or at a predetermined address, the method comprising:
enabling, by an application server, via a communication network, one or more users using respective user device(s) to login to the application server, the application server including at least one data processor, by means of a respective username and password previously established in the system by a respective one of the one or more users and stored in a portion of a user information memory block of the application server designated for the respective one of the one or more users, whereby the respective user device(s) is/are connected to the application server, wherein the respective user device(s) is/are computing device(s) including a screen, location determination, a calendar, at least one processor, and at least one input device, and wherein the respective user device(s) is/are configured to connect to the communication network (see; par. 30] of Mitchell teaches a network and devices (i.e. screen) attached to the network for multiple users and type of users, par. [0013] and par. [0052] provide the location of the service provider which provides the ability of the contractor to determine if any additional surcharges are needed for travel between the customer location and the contractor location, par. [0035] utilizing a calendar to schedule the service).
once the user has chosen the consultation access privileges and defined the consultation expiration time, enabling, by the application server, via the communication network, the user using the respective user device to save the consultation in a consultation storage unit of the application server (see; par. [0053] of Mitchell teaches an example of a contractor defining a period of time the quote is good for, par. [0030] utilizing a network to communicate to the potential customer, as well as server to manage the data).
receiving at the application server, via the communication network, a marking, by the user, of the consultation as a pending or open consultation (see; par. [0053] of Mitchell teaches receiving a quote (i.e. consultation) that is provided for a contractor specified period of time, par. [0053] where the contractor can adjust the quote).
whereby the at least one data processor is enabled to send, via the communication network, an alert of availability of the consultation to one or more respective provider devices of the one or more providers having access that-has privileges to access the consultation, wherein the alert is downloaded to respective screens of the one or more provider devices (see; par. [0011]-[0012] of Mitchell teaches displaying to customers, par. [0042] a display of the contract, par. [0060] that provides a notification from the customer that they are happy with the quote and request a further notification fir a contractor to call the customer).
Mitchell does not explicitly disclose the following limitations, however,
Spielman teaches once the respective user device(s) is/are connected to the application server, enabling, by the application server, via the communication network, a user of the one or more users using a respective user device of the user, to select a category related to a specific service that the user needs, indicating whether the service will be received in a means of transport, thereby establishing a user-desired consultation (see; Figure 2 and par. [0080] of Spielman teaches a server side interface to communicate a request, par. [0074]) where a specific type of vehicle (i.e. category) as a means of transport, par. [0201] utilizing a communication protocols over a network), and
once the category has been selected, enabling, by the application server, via the communication network, the user using the respective user device of the user to enter information related to a location of the user and a specific need of the user they have, so that to thereby enable one or more providers with can-have bases to create proposals, as well as to have the user's location for the means of transport or the selected address (see; par. [0063] of Spielman teaches a device location of a user and a final destination, par. [0072] and Figure 5 where a device shows available offer that shows cost of transport and uses real time GPS for both the user and the desired locations and a screen shows available options (i.e. proposal) which includes time windows of the options, where the availability is constantly changing in real time), and
once the user has entered the location and specific need enabling, by the application server, via the communication network, the user using the respective user device to add a can-add the consultation expiration time and consultation access privileges (see; par. [0059] of Spielman teaches a designated time window, par. [0144] which provides offers (i.e. consultations) to users that good for a given time window, par. [0069] provided on an application of a user device, Figure 5 which displays the options and as well as the location of the user and the available transport options).
The Examiner notes that Mitchell teaches similar to the instant application teaches estimating, scheduling, and purchasing project services. Specifically, Mitchell discloses the online system to estimate, schedule and purchase a variety of home related services it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Spielman teaches communicating a predicted match to an offline transportation provider device and as it is comparable in certain respects to Mitchell which estimating, scheduling, and purchasing project services as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection.
Mitchell discloses the similar to the instant application teaches estimating, scheduling, and purchasing project services. However, Mitchell fails to disclose once the respective user device(s) is/are connected to the application server, enabling, by the application server, via the communication network, a user of the one or more users using a respective user device of the user, to select a category related to a specific service that the user needs, indicating whether the service will be received in a means of transport, thereby establishing a user-desired consultation, once the category has been selected, enabling, by the application server, via the communication network, the user using the respective user device of the user to enter information related to a location of the user and a specific need of the user they have, so that to thereby enable one or more providers with can-have bases to create proposals, as well as to have the user's location for the means of transport or the selected address, and once the user has entered the location and specific need enabling, by the application server, via the communication network, the user using the respective user device to add a can-add the consultation expiration time and consultation access privileges.
Spielman discloses once the respective user device(s) is/are connected to the application server, enabling, by the application server, via the communication network, a user of the one or more users using a respective user device of the user, to select a category related to a specific service that the user needs, indicating whether the service will be received in a means of transport, thereby establishing a user-desired consultation, once the category has been selected, enabling, by the application server, via the communication network, the user using the respective user device of the user to enter information related to a location of the user and a specific need of the user they have, so that to thereby enable one or more providers with can-have bases to create proposals, as well as to have the user's location for the means of transport or the selected address, and once the user has entered the location and specific need enabling, by the application server, via the communication network, the user using the respective user device to add a can-add the consultation expiration time and consultation access privileges.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management
(system/method/apparatus) of Mitchell once the respective user device(s) is/are connected to the application server, enabling, by the application server, via the communication network, a user of the one or more users using a respective user device of the user, to select a category related to a specific service that the user needs, indicating whether the service will be received in a means of transport, thereby establishing a user-desired consultation, once the category has been selected, enabling, by the application server, via the communication network, the user using the respective user device of the user to enter information related to a location of the user and a specific need of the user they have, so that to thereby enable one or more providers with can-have bases to create proposals, as well as to have the user's location for the means of transport or the selected address, and once the user has entered the location and specific need enabling, by the application server, via the communication network, the user using the respective user device to add a can-add the consultation expiration time and consultation access privileges as taught by Spielman since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, Mitchell, and Spielman teach the collecting and analysis of data in order to maximize the utilization of contractor resource by scheduling of qualified personnel and they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined.
Referring to Claim 44, see discussion of claim 43 above, while Mitchell in view of Spielman teaches the method above, Mitchell further discloses a method having the limitations of and further comprising:
enabling, by the application server, via the communication network, a given provider of the one or more providers using a respective provider device of the given provider to login to the application server using a provider-must-have a provider name and a password previously established in the system and stored in a portion of a provider information memory block of the application server designated for that specific provider, whereby the given provider is connected with the application server, wherein the respective provider device is a computing device including a screen, location determination, a calendar, at least one processor, and at least one input device (see; par. [0038] and par. [0061] of Mitchell teaches contractors have access based on a password to login to the system, par. [0030] where the utilization takes place over a network, par. [0046] where the system knows the location of the contractor, par. [0035] and also provides access to the calendar).
wherein the respective provider device is configured to connect to the communication network (see; par. [0030] of Mitchell teaches the communication takes place over a network).
once the given provider has connected with the application server, enabling, by the application server, via the communication network, the given provider using the respective provider device of the given provider to access consultations generated by the one or more users, which are available to the given provider using the respective provider device of the given provider, based on consultation access privileges previously established by the one or more users, and enabling the given provider using the respective provider device of the given provider will be able to download, via the communication network, on a screen of the respective provider device of the given provider, information related to at least one consultation and based on the needs described in the at least one consultation (see; par. [0030]-[0031] of Mitchell teaches access over the network utilizing a user device, par. [0035]-[0036] where access to the quote (i.e. consultation) is provided based on access to the system via a password, par. [0011]the quote can be provided to the user, par. [0052] and includes average quote prices, par. [0059] and information to the contractor to review from the potential customer).
receiving at the application server, via the communication network, from the given provider using the respective provider device of the given provider, at least one proposal, wherein the at least one proposal includes at least one solution to the at least one consultation, a provider availability option to schedule a meeting based on availability information of a calendar of the given provider stored in a provider profile of the given provider stored in the provider information memory block of the application server, wherein once the at least one proposal has been received from the provider device of the given provider, the given provider is enabled, by the application server, to save and send the at least one proposal, and storing, by the application server, the at least one proposal in a proposal storage unit of the application server, along with other proposals that other providers of the one or more providers have made for a given consultation, thus creating a set of proposals for the given consultation (see; par. [0035] of Mitchell in addition to providing a calendar to set work, par. [0052]-[0053 contractor are provided access, par. [0059] as part of the contractor receiving quotes for review and adjust quotes on a computer display, par. [0058] where the contractor can assign quote to team members (i.e. set of proposal) for review by the contractors team, par. [0056] and schedule the work accordingly).
sending, by the at least one data processor, via the communication network, an alert to a user device associated with the given consultation each time a provider device has created a new proposal related to the given consultation (see; par. [0009] of Mitchell teaches consumers are notified (i.e. alert) in real time when a new quote is available for review, [0030]-[0031] over the network utilizing a user devices).
sending a notification, by the application server via the communication network to the respective provider device of the provider whose proposal was chosen by the user associated with the given consultation (see; par. [0060] of Mitchell teaches based on a selection of a quote having the contractor contact the customer, [0030]-[0031] over the network utilizing a user devices, par. [0009] where consumers are notified (i.e. alert) in real time).
synchronizing calendars associated with the user device associated with the consultation, the provider device associated with the chosen proposal, and a means of transport device, so-that-the to thereby block out and close a date, place and time included in the chosen proposal for a meeting between the user associated with the consultation and the provider associated with the chosen proposal (see; par. [0035] of Mitchell teaches the utilization of an electronic calendar to, par. [0056] block off the time in the schedule for the contractor to provide the user the services required, par. [0052] where the location of the meeting is taken into account to add travel surcharges if necessary).
wherein the means of transport device is a computing device including a screen, location determination, a calendar, at least one input device, and at least one processor, wherein the means of transport device is configured to connect to the communication network (see; par. [0035] of Mitchell teaches a calendar to store specific event appointments, par. [0030] which is part of the network linked to multiple mobile and computing devices).
Mitchell does not explicitly disclose the following limitation, however,
Spielman teaches enabling, by the application server, via the communication network, a user associated with the given consultation to use the respective user device of the user associated with the given consultation to access the set of proposals for the given consultation stored in the proposal storage unit, to thereby enable the user associated with the given consultation to review each proposal of the set of proposals associated with the given consultation, and to choose one of the proposals of the set of proposals associated with the given consultation, along with a means of transport where the consultation will take place (see; par. [0069] of Spielman teaches providing on an application of a user device, par. [0201] over a communication network, par. [0144] a time window for availability of transport means, par. [0072] and Figure 5 disclose a user device providing a list of options (i.e. consultation) for a user to select, par. [0074] a desired vehicle type (i.e. category)).
The Examiner notes that Mitchell teaches similar to the instant application teaches estimating, scheduling, and purchasing project services. Specifically, Mitchell discloses the online system to estimate, schedule and purchase a variety of home related services it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Spielman teaches communicating a predicted match to an offline transportation provider device and as it is comparable in certain respects to Mitchell which estimating, scheduling, and purchasing project services as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection.
Mitchell discloses the similar to the instant application teaches estimating, scheduling, and purchasing project services. However, Mitchell fails to disclose enabling, by the application server, via the communication network, a user associated with the given consultation to use the respective user device of the user associated with the given consultation to access the set of proposals for the given consultation stored in the proposal storage unit, to thereby enable the user associated with the given consultation to review each proposal of the set of proposals associated with the given consultation, and to choose one of the proposals of the set of proposals associated with the given consultation, along with a means of transport where the consultation will take place.
Spielman discloses enabling, by the application server, via the communication network, a user associated with the given consultation to use the respective user device of the user associated with the given consultation to access the set of proposals for the given consultation stored in the proposal storage unit, to thereby enable the user associated with the given consultation to review each proposal of the set of proposals associated with the given consultation, and to choose one of the proposals of the set of proposals associated with the given consultation, along with a means of transport where the consultation will take place.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management (system/method/apparatus) of Mitchell enabling, by the application server, via the communication network, a user associated with the given consultation to use the respective user device of the user associated with the given consultation to access the set of proposals for the given consultation stored in the proposal storage unit, to thereby enable the user associated with the given consultation to review each proposal of the set of proposals associated with the given consultation, and to choose one of the proposals of the set of proposals associated with the given consultation, along with a means of transport where the consultation will take place as taught by Spielman since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, Mitchell, and Spielman teach the collecting and analysis of data in order to maximize the utilization of contractor resource by scheduling of qualified personnel and they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined.
Referring to Claim 45, see discussion of claim 44 above, while Mitchell in view of Spielman teaches the method above, Mitchell further discloses a method having the limitations of and further comprising,
when a user of the one or more users chooses a proposal, choice of proposal sets an amount to be deposited associated with a rank of a provider of the one or more providers associated with the chosen proposal, wherein the amount to be deposited is transferred from a banking account associated with banking information stored in the user information memory block of the application server and associated with the user, to a banking account associated with the system, wherein the amount deposited in the account associated with the system is further associated by the application server with banking information stored in the provider information memory block of the application server and associated with the provider associated with the chosen (see; par. [0033] and par. [0037] of Mitchell teaches that once a quote is accepted by a user payment details are managed and payment can be made by credit card or debit card (i.e. bank account) where the payment details are managed between the customer and contractor (i.e. down payment) as terms can be set stating upfront costs or financing details).
Referring to Claim 47, see discussion of claim 43 above, while Mitchell in view of Spielman teaches the method above, Mitchell does not explicitly disclose a method having the limitations of and further comprising, however,
Spielman teaches the user is enabled by the application server, via the communication network, to request and receive the service in a means of transport or at a selected address (see; Figure 5 and par. [0072] of Spielman teaches enabling an application to use a network to request, par. [0074] a specific transport means, Figure 5 where locations and addresses are identified).
The Examiner notes that Mitchell teaches similar to the instant application teaches estimating, scheduling, and purchasing project services. Specifically, Mitchell discloses the online system to estimate, schedule and purchase a variety of home related services it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Spielman teaches communicating a predicted match to an o