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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-6 and 8 are all the claims pending in the application.
Claims 1-6 and 8 are amended.
Claims 1-6 and 8 are rejected.
The following is a Final Office Action in response to amendments and remarks filed September 9, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the 112(b) rejection, the rejection is withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims.
Regarding the 101 rejections, the rejections are maintained for the following reasons. First, Applicant asserts the QR code mechanism improves existing computer processes. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because the use of the QR code mechanism in the present claims is only a general link to a field of use.
Second, Applicant asserts the geo-fencing and GPS reflects an improvement, Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent is not sufficient to show an improvement, see pg. MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) (discussing MPEP 2106.05(a)). That is, it is not clear how the geo-fencing and GPS reflects an improvement.
Third, Applicant asserts the artificial intelligence and machine learning addresses technological problems, Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because the artificial intelligence and machine learning are claimed too broadly to be more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea.
Fourth, Applicant asserts the virtual infrastructure reflects an improvement, Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent is not sufficient to show an improvement, see pg. MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) (discussing MPEP 2106.05(a)). That is, it is not clear how the virtual infrastructure reflects an improvement.
Fifth, Applicant asserts the claims solve an internet-based problem of verifying contractor leads. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because verifying contractor leads is not an internet-based problem but instead is a business or sales problem.
Sixth, Applicant asserts the claims provide a non-conventional arrangement of parts. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because the various components are claimed too broadly and generally to be more than a general link to a field of use and mere instructions to apply the exception.
Seventh, Applicant asserts the dual part location validation reflects an improvement, Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent is not sufficient to show an improvement, see pg. MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) (discussing MPEP 2106.05(a)). That is, it is not clear how the dual part location validation reflects an improvement.
Eighth, Applicant asserts the artificial intelligence and machine learning reflect a non-conventional arrangement of parts for contractor services, Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because the artificial intelligence and machine learning are claimed too broadly to be more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea.
Ninth, Applicant asserts the QR code mechanism solves a technical problem that previously required manual data entry. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer does not provide a sufficient inventive concept, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (discussing Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA)).
Tenth, Applicant asserts querying third part databased required innovative algorithms. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., innovative algorithms) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Eleventh, Applicant asserts the virtual infrastructure reflects an required innovative integration. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the innovative integration) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Twelfth, Applicant asserts the real-time contractor notification solves a technical problem. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent is not sufficient to show an improvement, see pg. MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) (discussing MPEP 2106.05(a)). That is, it is not clear how the real-time contractor notification solves a technical problem.
Thirteenth, Applicant asserts the claims use minimal input data. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertions persuasive because a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent is not sufficient to show an improvement, see pg. MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) (discussing MPEP 2106.05(a)). That is, it is not clear how using input data to search external data reflects an improvement over existing systems.
Fourteenth, Applicant reasserts the various claim features reflect improvement. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertions persuasive for the reasons discussed above.
Regarding the 103 rejections, the rejections are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s Amendments, Remarks, and Affidavits because the previously cited references do not teach all the newly amended limitations.
Please note, Applicant asserts the claims are not obvious due to secondary considerations, specifically commercial success and addressing a long-felt need, supplying an affidavit in support. Examiner respectfully does not find the affidavit demonstrates commercial success because the affidavit does not provide evidence that the product or process has been sold or controls a share the market, see MPEP 716.03. That is, the affidavit does not provide quantitative evidence of sales or revenue associated with the claimed invention. Examiner also respectfully does not find the affidavit demonstrates the claimed subject matter solved a problem that was long standing in the art. There is no showing that others of ordinary skill in the art were working on the problem and if so, for how long. In addition, there is no evidence that if persons skilled in the art who were presumably working on the problem knew of the teachings of the cited references, they would still be unable to solve the problem. See MPEP § 716.04.
Additionally, please note, Applicant has supplied an affidavit to proactively address a possible 112(a) rejection based on the claim amendments. However Examiner notes various significant page and line number citations in the affidavit do not align with the Specification as filed and various significant quotes in the affidavit are not present in the Specification as filed1. As such, Examiner does not find the affidavit persuasive.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on Sep. 9, 2025 was filed after the mailing date of the Sep. 9, 2025 on Dec. 12/2025. The submission was considered but the CV is not prior art so it has been struck through on the IDS.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding independent claim 1, claim 1 recites the following newly amended limitations which were not described in the Specification:
“receiving a lead request initiated through a QR code scanning mechanism”, however there is no discussion, throughout the entirety of the specification and drawings of the original Specification or the associated provisional applications, of using QR codes. Examiner notes Applicant asserts in the Remarks, in an Affidavit, and in an Appendix to the Amendments, all dated Sep. 9, 2025 that this concept was show in pgs. 2-3 ll. 15-25 of the original Specification. However there is no discussion of using QR codes in that portion of the original Specification, nor anywhere else.
“retrieve comprehensive lead intelligence data including…service history information” however there is no discussion, throughout the entirety of the specification and drawings of the original Specification or the associated provisional applications, of retrieving service history information. Examiner notes Applicant asserts in the Remarks, in an Affidavit, and in an Appendix to the Amendments, all dated Sep. 9, 2025 that this concept was show in pg. 5 ll. 5-10 of the original Specification. However there is no discussion of retrieving service history information in that portion of the original Specification, nor anywhere else.
“automated algorithms designed for contractor services lead qualification that analyze physical labor service requirements and contractor availability”, however there is no discussion, throughout the entirety of the specification and drawings of the original Specification or the associated provisional applications, of analyzing physical labor service requirements and contractor availability. Examiner notes Applicant asserts in the Remarks, in an Affidavit, and in an Appendix to the Amendments, all dated Sep. 9, 2025 that this concept was show in pg. 6 ll. 21-25, pg. 7, ll. 5-10 of the original Specification. However there is no discussion of analyzing physical labor service requirements and contractor availability in that portion of the original Specification, nor anywhere else.
“tracking and managing the specific lead interaction with geo-fencing technology and GPS integration capabilities” however there is no discussion, throughout the entirety of the specification and drawings of the original Specification or the associated provisional applications, of geo-fencing technology and GPS integration capabilities. Examiner notes Applicant asserts in the Remarks, in an Affidavit, and in an Appendix to the Amendments, all dated Sep. 9, 2025 that this concept was show in pg. 12 ll. 10-20, pg. 14, ll. 25-35 of the original Specification2. However there is no discussion geo-fencing technology and GPS integration capabilities in that portion of the original Specification, nor anywhere else.
“contractor performance tracking with location-based authenticity scoring” however there is no discussion, throughout the entirety of the specification and drawings of the original Specification or the associated provisional applications, of contractor performance tracking. Examiner notes Applicant asserts in the Remarks, in an Affidavit, and in an Appendix to the Amendments, all dated Sep. 9, 2025 that this concept was show in pgs. 2-13 of the original Specification3. However there is no discussion of contractor performance tracking in that portion of the original Specification, nor anywhere else.
As such, the Examiner asserts this as evidence that the newly amended claim 1 is new matter. Accordingly claim 1 is rejected under 112(a). Claims 2-6 and 8 do not overcome this issue and are rejected due to their dependencies.
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 is further rejected under 112(a) because claim 2 recites the following newly amended limitations which were not described in the Specification:
“said QR code scanning mechanism generating unique QR codes that encode property-specific information and contractor service requirements with real-time location detection”, however there is no discussion, throughout the entirety of the specification and drawings of the original Specification or the associated provisional applications, of using QR codes that encode property-specific information and contractor service requirements with real-time location detection. Examiner notes Applicant asserts in the Remarks, in an Affidavit, and in an Appendix to the Amendments, all dated Sep. 9, 2025 that this concept was show in pgs. 2-3 ll. 15-25 of the original Specification. However there is no discussion of using QR codes in that portion of the original Specification, nor anywhere else.
“mobile device scanning with mobile device geo-fencing verification and GPS coordinate validation”, however there is no discussion, throughout the entirety of the specification and drawings of the original Specification or the associated provisional applications, of geo-fencing verification and GPS coordinate validation. Examiner notes Applicant asserts in the Remarks, in an Affidavit, and in an Appendix to the Amendments, all dated Sep. 9, 2025 that this concept was show in pg. 14, ll. 25-35 of the original Specification4. However there is no discussion of geo-fencing verification and GPS coordinate validation in that portion of the original Specification, nor anywhere else.
“capturing location data and service context automatically through the mobile device interaction with dual-party location confirmation”, however there is no discussion, throughout the entirety of the specification and drawings of the original Specification or the associated provisional applications, of the dual-party location confirmation. Examiner notes Applicant asserts in the Remarks, in an Affidavit, and in an Appendix to the Amendments, all dated Sep. 9, 2025 that this concept was show in pg. 12, ll. 25-35 of the original Specification5. However there is no discussion of using QR codes in that portion of the original Specification, nor anywhere else.
As such, the Examiner asserts this as evidence that the newly amended claim 2 is new matter. Accordingly claim 2 is further rejected under 112(a).
Regarding claim 3, claim 3 is further rejected under 112(a) because claim 3 recites the following newly amended limitations which were not described in the Specification:
“said querying a plurality of third-party numeric databases accessing simultaneously multiple external database sources including…contractor performance databases” however there is no discussion, throughout the entirety of the specification and drawings of the original Specification or the associated provisional applications, of querying contractor performance databases.
“within predetermined time thresholds suitable for real-time contractor notification” however there is no discussion, throughout the entirety of the specification and drawings of the original Specification or the associated provisional applications, of time thresholds suitable for real-time contractor notification.
As such, the Examiner asserts this as evidence that the newly amended claim 3 is new matter. Accordingly claim 3 is further rejected under 112(a).
Regarding claim 4, claim 4 is further rejected under 112(a) because claim 4 recites the following newly amended limitations which were not described in the Specification:
“calculating lead quality scores based on… service complexity” however there is no discussion, throughout the entirety of the specification and drawings of the original Specification or the associated provisional applications, of calculating lead quality scores based on service complexity. Examiner notes Applicant asserts in the Remarks, in an Affidavit, and in an Appendix to the Amendments, all dated Sep. 9, 2025 that this concept was show in pg. 6, ll. 21-25 of the original Specification. However there is no discussion of calculating lead quality scores based on service complexity in that portion of the original Specification6, nor anywhere else.
“within predetermined time thresholds suitable for real-time contractor notification” however there is no discussion, throughout the entirety of the specification and drawings of the original Specification or the associated provisional applications, of time thresholds suitable for real-time contractor notification.
“prioritizing contractor notifications based on…response time optimization” however there is no discussion, throughout the entirety of the specification and drawings of the original Specification or the associated provisional applications, of prioritizing contractor notifications based on response time optimization.
As such, the Examiner asserts this as evidence that the newly amended claim 4 is new matter. Accordingly claim 4 is further rejected under 112(a). Claim 8 does not overcome this issue and accordingly is rejected due to its dependency.
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 is further rejected under 112(a) because claim 6 recites the following newly amended limitations which were not described in the Specification:
“providing real-time lead details including…urgency indicators” however there is no discussion, throughout the entirety of the specification and drawings of the original Specification or the associated provisional applications, of urgency indicators.
“providing mobile interfaces upon which contractors confirm availability and estimated response times” however there is no discussion, throughout the entirety of the specification and drawings of the original Specification or the associated provisional applications, of contractors confirming estimated response times. Examiner notes Applicant asserts in the Remarks, in an Affidavit, and in an Appendix to the Amendments, all dated Sep. 9, 2025 that this concept was show in pg. 11, ll. 31-35 of the original Specification. However there is no discussion of contractors confirming estimated response times in that portion of the original Specification7, nor anywhere else.
“wherein said providing mobile interfaces…shows a physical nature of a lead to a user as a laborers” however there is no discussion, throughout the entirety of the specification and drawings of the original Specification or the associated provisional applications, of showing a lead as laborers. Examiner notes Applicant asserts in the Remarks, in an Affidavit, and in an Appendix to the Amendments, all dated Sep. 9, 2025 that this concept was show in pg. 6 ll. 21-25 of the original Specification. However there is no discussion showing a lead as laborers in that portion of the original Specification, nor anywhere else.
As such, the Examiner asserts this as evidence that the newly amended claim 6 is new matter. Accordingly claim 6 is further rejected under 112(a).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is rejected as indefinite because claim 1 recites (emphasized) “…storing the lead vetting results in a non-transitory computer readable medium…” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation.
Accordingly claim 1, is rejected under 112(b). Claims 2-6 and 8 do not clarify this issue and accordingly are rejected due to their dependencies.
Claim 5 further is rejected as indefinite because claim 5 recites the term (emphasized) “…facilitate automated correspondence and documentation through virtual email address creation…” This limitation is indefinite because the meaning of the term “virtual email address” is apparent from the prior art or from the specification and drawings, see MPEP 2173.05(a). That is, neither the prior art nor the specification defines the term virtual email address and the difference between a virtual email address and a ‘normal’ email address has not been established (i.e., virtual phone numbers are distinct from ‘normal’ phone numbers because virtual phone numbers are not tied to a physical line or device, however emails are normally not tied to a physical device). Accordingly, claim 5 is rejected under 112(b). For the purposes of analyzing the claim set, Examiner is interpreting the limitation as an email address.
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 1-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must first be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention. Applying Step 1 to the claims it is determined that: claims 1-6 and 8 are directed to a process.
Independent Claims
Under Step 2A Prong 1 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories or “buckets” of patent ineligible subject matter that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
The independent claims recite an abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 1 recites an abstract idea in the limitations (emphasized):
…providing a computer system;
receiving a lead request initiated through a QR code scanning mechanism that enables property owners to instantly connect with qualified contractors through mobile device interaction, said receiving a lead request operating upon said computer system;
extracting a mobile phone number and a zip code from the lead request as minimal input data sufficient for comprehensive lead analysis, said extracting a mobile phone number and a zip code operating upon said computer system;
querying a plurality of third-party numeric databases using the mobile phone number and zip code to retrieve comprehensive lead intelligence data including identity verification, location validation, and service history information, said querying a plurality of third-party numeric databases occurring automatically, and said querying a plurality of third-party numeric databases operating upon said computer system;
processing the retrieved data through automated algorithms designed for contractor services lead qualification that analyze physical labor service requirements and contractor availability using artificial intelligence processing of the lead and machine learning processing of the lead, said processing the retrieved data operating upon said computer system;
generating virtual infrastructure including dedicated phone numbers and email addresses for tracking and managing the specific lead interaction with geo-fencing technology and GPS integration capabilities, said generating virtual infrastructure operating upon said computer system;
forwarding the processed lead information to qualified contractors through automated notification systems that enable real-time mobile communication using mobile communication protocols including FDM, TDM, CDMA, and GSM integration said forwarding the processed lead information operating upon said computer system; and
storing the lead vetting results in a non-transitory computer readable medium for future reference and contractor performance tracking with location-based authenticity scoring, said storing the lead vetting, results operating upon said computer system.
These limitations recite an abstract idea because these limitations encompass commercial or legal interactions (i.e., marketing or sales activities or behaviors). These limitations encompass commercial or legal interactions because these limitations essentially encompass receiving lead requests, retrieving information about sales leads to assess the sales leads, tracking the leads, and distributing the leads to contractors, which are sales activities and behaviors. Accordingly, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong 2 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must be determined whether the identified, recited abstract idea includes additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional elements of the independent claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional elements (emphasized):
…providing a computer system;
receiving a lead request initiated through a QR code scanning mechanism that enables property owners to instantly connect with qualified contractors through mobile device interaction, said receiving a lead request operating upon said computer system;
extracting a mobile phone number and a zip code from the lead request as minimal input data sufficient for comprehensive lead analysis, said extracting a mobile phone number and a zip code operating upon said computer system;
querying a plurality of third-party numeric databases using the mobile phone number and zip code to retrieve comprehensive lead intelligence data including identity verification, location validation, and service history information, said querying a plurality of third-party numeric databases occurring automatically, and said querying a plurality of third-party numeric databases operating upon said computer system;
processing the retrieved data through automated algorithms designed for contractor services lead qualification that analyze physical labor service requirements and contractor availability using artificial intelligence processing of the lead and machine learning processing of the lead, said processing the retrieved data operating upon said computer system;
generating virtual infrastructure including dedicated phone numbers and email addresses for tracking and managing the specific lead interaction with geo-fencing technology and GPS integration capabilities, said generating virtual infrastructure operating upon said computer system;
forwarding the processed lead information to qualified contractors through automated notification systems that enable real-time mobile communication using mobile communication protocols including FDM, TDM, CDMA, and GSM integration said forwarding the processed lead information operating upon said computer system; and
storing the lead vetting results in a non-transitory computer readable medium for future reference and contractor performance tracking with location-based authenticity scoring, said storing the lead vetting, results operating upon said computer system.
These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for the following reasons. First, the additional elements of providing a computer system, the various steps operating upon said computer system, and the non-transitory computer readable medium, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components, see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Second, the additional elements of the process being initiated through a QR code scanning mechanism, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are only a general link to a field of use or technological environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h) (discussing Affinity Labs). That is, although these additional elements do limit the use of the abstract idea, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (QR codes) and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the claims.
Third, the additional elements of connecting property owners with qualified contractors through mobile device interaction, generating virtual infrastructure, and automated notification systems that enable real-time mobile communication using mobile communication protocols, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are only a general link to a field of use or technological environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h) (discussing Affinity Labs); see also MPEP 2106.05(h) (discussing Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Bank and noting additional elements limiting the claims to a communication medium do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for the following reasons). That is, although these additional elements do limit the use of the abstract idea, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (mobile communications systems) and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the claims.
Fourth, the additional elements of extracting a mobile phone number and a zip code and storing the lead vetting results, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements encompass generic computer functions of receiving and storing data (i.e. receiving user input and storing analysis results), see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (noting the use of computers in their ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application).
Fifth, the additional elements of querying a plurality of third-party numeric databases, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are only using software to tailor information and provide it to a user, which is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f) (discussing Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA)).
Sixth, the additional elements of processing the retrieved data through automated algorithms using artificial intelligence and machine learning, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements of using artificial intelligence and machine learning are recited to generally and broadly to reflect more than mere instructions to apply the exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f)
Seventh, the additional elements of geo-fencing technology and GPS integration capabilities, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are only a general link to a field of use or technological environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h) (discussing Affinity Labs). That is, although these additional elements do limit the use of the abstract idea, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (GPS technologies) and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the claims.
Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B of the patent eligibility analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea (i.e., an innovative concept).
The independent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception and general links to fields of use. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and general links to fields of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims
The dependent claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 as directed to an abstract idea for the following reasons.
Claim 2 recites the additional elements of generating a QR code based on geo-fencing and capturing location data. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are only a general link to a fields of use or technological environments, see MPEP 2106.05(h) (discussing Affinity Labs). That is, although these additional elements do limit the use of the abstract idea, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environments (QR codes and GPS technologies) and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the claims.
Claim 3 recites the same abstract idea as the independent claim because verifying mobile phone number and zip codes and synthesizing the data is a part of assessing leads (i.e., verifying the leads come from legitimate sources and not fictional entities).
Claim 3 further recites the additional elements of using algorithms, data analytics, and automated lookup applications. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components, see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 4 recites the same abstract idea as the independent claim because evaluating contractor availability and qualification levels, calculating lead scores, and prioritizing notifications based on matching is a part of assessing leads (i.e., selecting the most appropriate vendors for the leads).
Claim 4 further recites the additional elements of using server and software application database coordination. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components, see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 5 recites the additional elements of establishing dedicated email addresses and call routing systems. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are only a general link to a field of use or technological environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h) (discussing Affinity Labs); see also MPEP 2106.05(h) (discussing Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Bank and noting additional elements limiting the claims to a communication medium do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for the following reasons). That is, although these additional elements do limit the use of the abstract idea, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (e.g., call center technologies or call handling technologies) and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the claims.
Claim 5 further recites the additional elements of maintain audit trails. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements encompass generic computer functions of receiving and storing data (i.e. receiving and storing user input), see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (noting the use of computers in their ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application).
Claim 6 recites the additional elements of transmitting lead notifications, providing real-time lead details, and providing mobile interfaces. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are only a general link to a field of use or technological environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h) (discussing Affinity Labs); see also MPEP 2106.05(h) (discussing Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Bank and noting additional elements limiting the claims to a communication medium do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for the following reasons). That is, although these additional elements do limit the use of the abstract idea, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (e.g., mobile communications or smartphone communications) and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the claims.
Claim 8 recites same abstract idea as the independent claims because claims 8 recites building job profile data and calculating a vetting score which is a part of assessing leads because building the job profile is a part of gathering leads (i.e., collecting user information to assess the lead).
Claim 8 further recites the additional elements of notifications including an interface and refreshing the interface. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements encompass generic computer functions of sending data (e.g., sending and displaying user input), see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (noting the use of computers in their ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 BRENDAN S O'SHEA whose telephone number is (571)270-1064. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 10-6.
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, Nathan Uber can be reached at (571) 270-3923. 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.
/BRENDAN S O'SHEA/Examiner, Art Unit 3626
1 Examiner notes it is possible the affidavit was based on a different document than the Specification as filed because many of the citations and quotations do not align with Specification as filed.
2 Further, Examiner notes there is no line 35 on pg. 14 of the original Specification
3 Further, Examiner notes there is no line 35 on pg. 14 of the original Specification
4 Further, Examiner notes there is no line 35 on pg. 14 of the original Specification
5 Further, Examiner notes there is no line 35 on pg. 12 of the original Specification
6 Further, Examiner notes pg. 6, ll. 21-25 of the original Specification is part of the Brief Description of the Drawings
7 Further, Examiner notes there are no lines 31-35 on pg. 11 of the original Specification