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 .
Response to Amendment
The following is a FINAL Office action in reply to the Amendments and Arguments received on January 23, 2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 8 and 12 have been amended.
Claims 1-3, 8-10 and 12 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities: The Response to arguments references similar amendments to claims 1, 8 and 12 however the amendments to claim 8 do not appear to reflect the same amendments made to claims 1 and 12. Examiner believes this to be a typographical error and has examined the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3, 8-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-3 and 8-10 are drawn to methods while claim 12 is drawn an apparatus. As such, claims 1-3, 8-10 and 12 are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A - Prong One:
In prong one of step 2A, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether they recite a judicial exception.
Claim 8 (representative of independent claim(s) 1 and 12) recites/describes the following steps:
aggregating, data regarding a plurality of homeowner- users, said plurality of homeowner-users comprising a first homeowner-user
using said data regarding a plurality of homeowner-users to create a user profile for each of said plurality of homeowner-users, wherein said data regarding a plurality of homeowner-users comprises date inputted by homeowner-users
aggregating home data regarding a plurality of factors associated with a plurality of homes;
using said data regarding a plurality of factors associated with the plurality of homes to create a home profile for each of said plurality of homes; (Claims 1 and 12)
verifying said home data, comprising:
comparing newly inputted home data against existing data for conflict;
determining which home data to maintain as the present value of an inputted parameter; and updating or retaining the home data based upon the result of the determination
aggregating, service provider data regarding a plurality of factors associated with service providers providing services to homeowners;
receiving a request for a service type by a homeowner-user of one said plurality of homes;
determining, a set of user-service providers or partners available to provide the requested service based at least in part on the home data and at least in part on the homeowner-user data;;
determining a ranking of said user-service providers based upon reputational score of said user-service provider;
providing, a list of user-service providers available to provide the requested service.
These steps, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, describe or set-forth facilitating homeowner-oriented transactions by providing, a list of user-service providers available to provide the requested service, which amounts to a “commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations).” These limitations therefore fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
Alternatively, these steps, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass a human manually (e.g., in their mind, or using paper and pen providing, a list of user-service providers available to provide the requested service (i.e., one or more concepts performed in the human mind, such as one or more observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions), but for the recitation of generic computer components. If one or more claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "mental processes" subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 8 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A - Prong One: YES).
Independent claim(s) 1 and 12 recite/describe nearly identical steps (and therefore also recite limitations that fall within this subject matter grouping of abstract ideas), and this/these claim(s) is/are therefore determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis.
Step 2A - Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim(s) recite the additional elements/limitations of:
a server
one or more processors
at a server from a consumer device
one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media storing compute-executable instructions, which when executed by one or more computers of a server, cause the one or more computers to perform operations comprising
via an application interface;
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions listed above is equivalent to adding the words ''apply it'' on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on producing the abstract idea nor do they represent an improvement to the technology, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A -Prong Two: NO).
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above in "Step 2A - Prong 2", the requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions listed above is equivalent to adding the words "apply it" on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations therefore do not qualify as "significantly more" (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)).
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
Regarding Dependent Claims (2A/ 2B):
Dependent claims 3 and 10, fail to include any additional elements and are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner.
Dependent claim 2 and 9 includes additional limitations that are part of the abstract idea except for:
server
The additional elements of the dependent claims are equivalent to adding the words ''apply it'' on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. 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 for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 8-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gallagher et al. (2014/0172479) in view of Shefferman et al. (10,872,100).
Claims 1, 8 and 12
Gallagher et al. discloses a method and apparatus for gathering home information, and tools utilizing such information:
aggregating, by one or more processors, data regarding a plurality of homeowner- users, said plurality of homeowner-users comprising a first homeowner-user (Gallagher [0058][0129]); See at least [0058] “The customer then selects two desired time and date combinations for service. The customer provides input for the service request, such as photos of the item to be maintained or repaired using his or her computer, tablet, or other Smart Device 102 and may enter a custom text narrative for special requests. The system stores the user selections/inputs with the user's information from the Account Profile data repository so that specifics regarding the requested service and homeowner can then be accessed by the service request match processor.”
using said data regarding a plurality of homeowner-users to create a user profile for each of said plurality of homeowner-users, wherein said data regarding a plurality of homeowner-users comprises date inputted by homeowner-users via an application interface; (Gallagher [0109][0110]); See at least “The home profile database allows customers to create and manage their residence profiles.” See [0093] for Customer Dashboard interface.
aggregating, by one or more processors, home data regarding a plurality of factors associated with a plurality of homes (Gallagher [0007]); See at least “The home profile database provides a comprehensive database repository for user information and a home profile of all home related information.” See also [0133] “The provider of the disclosed system/method accumulates information about residential homes and other living spaces.
using said data regarding a plurality of factors associated with the plurality of homes to create a home profile for each of said plurality of homes (Gallagher [Figure 2][0029] [0036][0043][0045][0057]) See specifically [0057] “The home profile database contains all home information: infrastructure, appliances, home network information, interior design, exterior, safety devices, and improvements. It stores data in searchable form for utilization in completing service requests and in generating the work order.” See [0066] “the home profile module handles all tasks and transactions related to the customer's residence. These task and transactions include but are not limited to the creation of the home Profile Database or repository of information regarding the residence, updates to the home profile from the customer account through the Homeowner Dashboard, and history of Service Requests and in process/ completed Work Orders.”
aggregating, by one of more processors, service provider data regarding a plurality of factors associated with service provides providing services to homeowners, said first homeowner for a home owned by said first homeowner-user (Gallagher [0047]); See at least “The system disclosed herein retains a database of service providers/contractors skilled in the art of typical residential maintenance and repair services, along with the results of a vetting and customer rating system that scores each service provider/contractor network member based on past performance in a number of specific rating criteria.”
receiving, at a server from a consumer device, a request from said first homeowner-user for a service, contracting, or equipment need (Gallagher [0007]); See at least “The service request match processor contains a matching program that compares a home maintenance service request submitted by a customer with a service provider database and generates a match of the home maintenance service request with a best fit service provider, based on several criteria.”
receiving a request for a service type by said first homeowner for a home owned by said first homeowner-user (Gallagher [0058]) See at least “A resident of the home launches a Service Request through the Homeowner Dashboard 100.”
determining, by the server, a set of user-service providers or partners available to provide the requested service based at least in part on the home data and at least in part on the homeowner-user data; (Gallagher [0007]); See at least [0007] “The service request match processor contains a matching program that compares a home maintenance service request submitted by a customer with a service provider database and generates a match of the home maintenance service request with a best fit service provider, based on several criteria [home data]. See also [0058] “The customer provides input for the service request, such as photos of the item to be maintained or repaired using his or her computer, tablet, or other Smart Device 102 and may enter a custom text narrative for special requests. The system stores the user selections/inputs with the user's information from the Account Profile data repository so that specifics regarding the requested service and homeowner can then be accessed by the service request match processor.” See also [0078] “The service order processor interprets service requests provided by the customer, encompassing data from the home profile database concerning the specific customer and residence, converting this data into a format for automated processing.” See [0075] “The program continues to repeat until a set of contractors and timeslots have been chosen that cover the complete set of service tasks (305).”
determining, by the server, a ranking of said user-service providers based upon reputational score of said user-service provider (Gallagher [0073]); See at least “The matching program assigns the highest quality contractor(s) that can meet the service needs of the customer. The variables in the selection process include but are not limited to: 1) dates and times selected by the customer (called a timeslot); 2) total number of visits required to complete the services; 3) quality rating of the contractors [reputational score]; 4) geographic location of the customer; 5) contractor availability; and 6) customer criteria ranking (highest quality, earliest service date, lowest price, preferred contractors). These variables can be optionally ranked by the customer and yield different results.”
providing, by the server, a list of user-service providers available to provide the requested service (Gallagher [0103]). See at least “The Service Request Receiver processes and passes along the Service Request information to the service request match processor 702, where the request is analyzed and intelligently compared with the Contractor Profile information, resulting in a short list of potential contractors who are best suited to the Service Request at hand.”
Gallagher does not explicitly disclose verifying home data. Shefferman teaches:
verifying said home data, comprising (Shefferman [Column 5 Lines 11-15]): See at least “rather than assume the reliable data source always provides reliable data, any one or more of the aforementioned dates may be used to verify that the reliable data source is reliable.”
comparing newly inputted home data against existing data for conflict (Shefferman [Column 4 Lines 28-30]); See at least “At 306, it is determined whether there is a discrepancy between the listing data and the reliable listing data.”
determining which home data to maintain as the present value of an inputted parameter and updating or retaining the home data based upon the result of the determination (Shefferman [Column 3 Lines 10-20]) See at least “If there is a discrepancy between descriptions, then filter 114 determines which data source has a better reliability rating and then uses the description from that data source.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included in the method of gathering home information, as taught by Gallagher, verifying home data, as taught by Shefferman, to provide the most accurate information for listing data (Shefferman [Column 1 Lines 26-28]).
Claims 2 and 9
Modified Gallagher and Shefferman discloses the limitations above. Modified Gallagher further teaches:
contacting, by the server, the user-service providers on said list to facilitate contact of the user- homeowner by the user-service provider (Gallagher [0035][0123]). Where the reference teaches that the possible service providers are presented the opportunity and can respond with acceptance or refusal of the job [facilitated contact].
Claims 3 and 10
Modified Gallagher and Shefferman discloses the limitations above. Modified Gallagher further teaches:
providing to the homeowner said list of user-service providers meeting the needs of the request (Gallagher [0033][0103]). See at least [0103]“The Service Request Receiver processes and passes along the Service Request information to the service request match processor 702, where the request is analyzed and intelligently compared with the Contractor Profile information, resulting in a short list of potential contractors who are best suited to the Service Request at hand.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: The Office Action has rejected claims 1-3, 8-10, and 12 ''under 35 U.S.C. 101 because
the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more." Office Action, page 2. Applicant requests reconsideration in light of amendments to the claims.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and maintains the previous response. The amendment citing “an application interface” represents generic computing functions previously known in the industry and are merely using the application interface as a tool. The relevant question is whether the claims here do more than simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea of facilitating homeowner transactions (i.e. “certain methods of organizing human activity” and "mental processes") on a generic computer. They do not.
Taking the claim elements separately, the functions performed by the computer at each step of the process are purely conventional. All of the recited computer functions (e.g. aggregate data, retrieve data, filter/determine data, provide data) are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. In short, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions.
Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of Applicant’s method add nothing that is not already present when the steps reconsidered separately. Viewed as a whole, Applicant’s method claims simply recite the concept of gathering and verifying home information (i.e. a method of organizing human activity and an idea of itself).
The method claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Instead, the claims at issue amount to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea of gathering and verifying home information (i.e. a method of organizing human activity and an idea of itself) using a generic computer. That is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: Applicant notes that the primary cited reference Gallagher does not teach or disclose
this segregation of data. As discussed below, this aspect provides clear advantage as well a distinction.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Gallagher at paragraph [0066] teaches “the home profile module handles all tasks and transactions related to the customer's residence. These task and transactions include but are not limited to the creation of the home Profile Database or repository of information regarding the residence, updates to the home profile from the customer account through the Homeowner Dashboard, and history of Service Requests and in process/ completed Work Orders.” Furthermore, Gallagher teaches in Figure 9 that the homeowner has an Abriza account. See [0008] “The system combines the service request with an account profile for the customer from a customer account profile database…”
Applicant Argues: Applicant believes that Gallagher is not teaching the creation of home profiles and, separately, homeowner-user profiles.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Gallagher teaches in Figure 2 and paragraphs [0029][0036][0043][0045][0057], a home profile. See specifically [0057] “The home profile database contains all home information: infrastructure, appliances, home network information, interior design, exterior, safety devices, and improvements. It stores data in searchable form for utilization in completing service requests and in generating the work order.”
Conclusion
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 RASHIDA R SHORTER whose telephone number is (571)272-9345. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday from 9am- 530pm. 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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at (571) 270-3445. 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.
/RASHIDA R SHORTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626