DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
The amendment filed on 10/6/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1, 4-6, 8 and 10-11 are pending.
Claims 1, 4-6, 8 and 10-11 have been examined.
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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/6/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
Claims 1, 4-6 and 11 are amended.
Regarding applicant’s arguments on Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. §101, the arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
It is the applicant’s position that the amended claim1 “is not an abstract idea corresponding to human mental activities...” because it “is not simply a list of computer hardware functions. It consists of a sequence of actions that achieve the purpose of the invention by controlling a computer program containing components for achieving the purpose of the invention using the server processor of the matching service server.” The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claim(s) recite(s) matching service. Specifically, the claims recite “collecting, by a ..., specific personal information, including profile and matching rights information, from a specific personal ... or through a ... using a ...; verifying, by the..., whether the specific person satisfies the conditions for recruiting a successor; wherein the conditions for recruiting a successor correspond to at least one of the following: generation of a new matching right for the specific person, occurrence of a certain condition including personal issues set for the specific person with a matching right, or occurrence of a change in the circumstances including activity cycle of the specific person with matching rights, among collected specific person information, generating, by the..., successor recruitment information including the profile and matching right information of the specific person when the verification result satisfies the successor recruitment conditions, and transmitting the successor recruitment information to at least one successor ...; receiving, by the..., at least one successor candidate information including the profile information and succession information of a successor seeking succession from at least one successor ...; generating, by the..., a list of successor candidates based on the at least one successor candidate information; generating, by the ..., a voting request information including the list of successor candidates and the specific person information and transmitting the voting request information to at least one interested party ... that holds a certain percentage of the match rights of the specific person; receiving, by the ..., voting information based on the list of successor candidates and the specific person information included in the voting request information from at least one interested party ..., wherein the voting information is a succession consent vote for each successor candidate mapped to the specific person; determining, by the ..., a successor based on the received voting information through the following process: (a) verify that the votes included in the voting information meet a set voting rate, (b) when the set voting rate is met, retrieve a weighting value determined by each interested party ... stake in the matching rights of the specific person, (c) generate statistics on voting information by assigning each retrieved weighting value to the vote of each interested party ..., (d) select the successor with the most votes or the successor with the most votes among the successors with a certain percentage or more of votes set, in the statistics of voting information; and transmitting, by the ..., the determined successor information to the successor ... and at least one interested party ....”, which is evaluation within “Mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas and “commercial or legal interactions” within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106) because the claims involve a series of steps for providing matching service. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional element(s) of the claim(s) such as the use of a matching service provision server, terminals, network, web crawler, and processors merely use(s) a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The processors and memories are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of determining a match based on collected information) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The 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 element of using a matching service provision server, terminals, network, web crawler, and processors steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Regarding applicant’s arguments on Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. §103, the arguments are moot in light of the new ground rejection.
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, 4-6, 8 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Analysis
In the instant case, claims 1, 4-6, 8 and 10 are directed to a method, claim 11 is directed to a server. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
The claim(s) recite(s) matching service. Specifically, the claims recite “collecting, by a ..., specific personal information, including profile and matching rights information, from a specific personal ... or through a ... using a ...; verifying, by the..., whether the specific person satisfies the conditions for recruiting a successor; wherein the conditions for recruiting a successor correspond to at least one of the following: generation of a new matching right for the specific person, occurrence of a certain condition including personal issues set for the specific person with a matching right, or occurrence of a change in the circumstances including activity cycle of the specific person with matching rights, among collected specific person information, generating, by the..., successor recruitment information including the profile and matching right information of the specific person when the verification result satisfies the successor recruitment conditions, and transmitting the successor recruitment information to at least one successor ...; receiving, by the..., at least one successor candidate information including the profile information and succession information of a successor seeking succession from at least one successor ...; generating, by the..., a list of successor candidates based on the at least one successor candidate information; generating, by the ..., a voting request information including the list of successor candidates and the specific person information and transmitting the voting request information to at least one interested party ... that holds a certain percentage of the match rights of the specific person; receiving, by the ..., voting information based on the list of successor candidates and the specific person information included in the voting request information from at least one interested party ..., wherein the voting information is a succession consent vote for each successor candidate mapped to the specific person; determining, by the ..., a successor based on the received voting information through the following process: (a) verify that the votes included in the voting information meet a set voting rate, (b) when the set voting rate is met, retrieve a weighting value determined by each interested party ... stake in the matching rights of the specific person, (c) generate statistics on voting information by assigning each retrieved weighting value to the vote of each interested party ..., (d) select the successor with the most votes or the successor with the most votes among the successors with a certain percentage or more of votes set, in the statistics of voting information; and transmitting, by the ..., the determined successor information to the successor ... and at least one interested party ....”, which is evaluation within “Mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas and “commercial or legal interactions” within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106) because the claims involve a series of steps for providing matching service. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional element(s) of the claim(s) such as the use of a matching service provision server, terminals, network, web crawler, and processors merely use(s) a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The processors and memories are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of determining a match based on collected information) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The 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 element of using a matching service provision server, terminals, network, web crawler, and processors steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 4 and 6 describe conditions for recuring successors. transmitting matching candidates to interested party. Dependent claim 5 describes successors. Dependent claim 8 describes invalidating matching result. Dependent claim 10 describes determining matching candidates. These claims further recite the abstract idea of mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional element(s) of the claim(s) such as the use of a matching service provision server, terminals, network, web crawler, and processors merely use(s) a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims simply recite the concept of matching service. The 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.
The use of a matching service provision server, terminals, network, web crawler, and processors as tools to implement the abstract idea does not render the claim patent eligible because it does not provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment and requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea.
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, 5-6 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Application Publication US20100131418A1 (“McCagg et al.”) in view of US Application Publication US20140258032A1 (“Psota et al.”), and in further view of US Application Publication US20220076518A1 (“Byun”).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, McCagg et al. discloses:
collecting, by a matching service provision server, specific personal information, including profile and matching rights information, from a specific personal terminal or through a network using a web crawler; (Fig. 1A and 1B)
generating, by the matching service provision server, successor recruitment information including the profile and matching right information of the specific person when the verification result satisfies the successor recruitment conditions, and transmitting the successor recruitment information to at least one successor terminal; (Fig. 1A, ¶0003)
Examiner notes “generating, by the matching service provision server, successor recruitment information including the profile and matching right information of the specific person when the verification result satisfies the successor recruitment conditions, and transmitting the successor recruitment information to at least one successor terminal;” is a conditional language. generating and transmitting steps will not occur when the verification result does not satisfy the ... condition. Applicant is reminded that optional or conditional elements do not narrow the claims, See e.g. See MPEP 2103 I C; and In re Johnston, 435 F.3d 1381, 77 USPQ2d 1788, 1790 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
receiving, by the matching service provision server, at least one successor candidate information including the profile information and succession information of a successor seeking succession from at least one successor terminal; (Fig. 1A and 1B)
generating, by the matching service provision server, a list of successor candidates based on the at least one successor candidate information; (¶0003)
generating, by the matching service provision server, a voting request information including the list of successor candidates and the specific person information and transmitting the voting request information to at least one interested party terminal that holds a certain percentage of the match rights of the specific person; (¶0003)
receiving, by the matching service provision server, voting information based on the list of successor candidates and the specific person information included in the voting request information from at least one interested party terminal, wherein the voting information is a succession consent vote for each successor candidate mapped to the specific person; (¶0004)
transmitting, by the matching service provision server, the determined successor information to the successor terminal and at least one interested party terminal. (¶0004)
McCagg et al. does not explicitly disclose:
verifying, by the matching service provision server, whether the specific person satisfies the conditions for recruiting a successor;
wherein the conditions for recruiting a successor correspond to at least one of the following: generation of a new matching right for the specific person, occurrence of a certain condition including personal issues set for the specific person with a matching right, or occurrence of a change in the circumstances including activity cycle of the specific person with matching rights, among collected specific person information,
determining, by the matching service provision server, a successor based on the received voting information through the following process:
verify that the votes included in the voting information meet a set voting rate,
when the set voting rate is met, retrieve a weighting value determined by each interested party terminal's stake in the matching rights of the specific person,
generate statistics on voting information by assigning each retrieved weighting value to the vote of each interested party terminal,
select the successor with the most votes or the successor with the most votes among the successors with a certain percentage or more of votes set, in the statistics of voting information; and
However, Psota et al. discloses:
verifying, by the matching service provision server, whether the specific person satisfies the conditions for recruiting a successor; (¶0013)
wherein the conditions for recruiting a successor correspond to at least one of the following: generation of a new matching right for the specific person, occurrence of a certain condition including personal issues set for the specific person with a matching right, or occurrence of a change in the circumstances including activity cycle of the specific person with matching rights, among collected specific person information, (¶0321 and ¶0341)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Structured Job Search Engine of McCagg et al. by including verifying collected info in accordance with the teaching of Psota et al.. This modification enables the combined system to analyze and understand the matching requirements.
McCagg et al. and Psota et al. do not explicitly disclose:
determining, by the matching service provision server, a successor based on the received voting information through the following process:
verify that the votes included in the voting information meet a set voting rate,
when the set voting rate is met, retrieve a weighting value determined by each interested party terminal's stake in the matching rights of the specific person,
generate statistics on voting information by assigning each retrieved weighting value to the vote of each interested party terminal,
select the successor with the most votes or the successor with the most votes among the successors with a certain percentage or more of votes set, in the statistics of voting information; and
However, Byun discloses:
determining, by the matching service provision server, a successor based on the received voting information through the following process: (¶0063)
verify that the votes included in the voting information meet a set voting rate, (Byun claim 18)
when the set voting rate is met, retrieve a weighting value determined by each interested party terminal's stake in the matching rights of the specific person, (Fig. 5; ¶0063)
Examiner notes “(b) when the set voting rate is met, retrieve a weighting value...” is a conditional language. For instance, the retrieve step will not occur when the set voting rate is not met. Applicant is reminded that optional or conditional elements do not narrow the claims, See e.g. See MPEP 2103 I C; and In re Johnston, 435 F.3d 1381, 77 USPQ2d 1788, 1790 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
generate statistics on voting information by assigning each retrieved weighting value to the vote of each interested party terminal, (Fig. 5; ¶0063)
select the successor with the most votes or the successor with the most votes among the successors with a certain percentage or more of votes set, in the statistics of voting information; and (Fig. 5; ¶0063)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined system of McCagg et al. and Psota et al. by including weighted voting in accordance with the teaching of Byun. This modification enables the interesting party to gain more influence in determining the best match related to rights of specific person.
Regarding claim 5, McCagg et al. in view of Psota et al., and in further view of Byun discloses all limitations as described above. McCagg et al. further discloses:
wherein the list of successors includes succession priority order information for the plurality of successors to the specific person. (abs, ¶0003)
Regarding claim 6, McCagg et al. in view of Psota et al., and in further view of Byun discloses all limitations as described above. Byun further discloses:
wherein the determining the succession comprises:
applying a different weight to the voting result according to a holding ratio of a matching right possessed by the at least one interested party terminal; and (Fig. 5; ¶0063)
matching at least one successor to the at least one specific person according to the differently weighted voting result. (Fig. 5; ¶0063)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined system of McCagg et al. and Psota et al. by including weighted voting in accordance with the teaching of Byun. This modification enables the interesting party to gain more influence in determining the best match related to rights of specific person.
Regarding claim 10, McCagg et al. in view of Psota et al., and in further view of Byun discloses all limitations as described above. McCagg et al. further discloses:
wherein the determining the succession comprises matching one or more successors to the at least one specific person in a specified priority order. (abs, ¶0003 and ¶0075)
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Application Publication US20100131418A1 (“McCagg et al.”) in view of US Application Publication (“Psota et al.”), in further view of US Application Publication US20220076518A1 (“Byun”) and US20100036712A1 (“Abrahamsohn”).
Regarding claim 4, McCagg et al. in view of Psota et al., and in further view of Byun discloses all limitations as described above. McCagg et al., Psota et al. and Byun do not explicitly disclose:
wherein among the conditions for recruiting successors, the certain condition set for the specific person is the occurrence of at least one of the following events: the death, disappearance, retirement, hospitalization, or illness of the specific person; the trading volume of the stock related to the specific person at or below the reference level; the trading price of the stock at or below the reference level; or the termination or cancellation of a contract related to the specific person.
However, Abrahamsohn discloses:
wherein among the conditions for recruiting successors, the certain condition set for the specific person is the occurrence of at least one of the following events: the death, disappearance, retirement, hospitalization, or illness of the specific person; the trading volume of the stock related to the specific person at or below the reference level; the trading price of the stock at or below the reference level; or the termination or cancellation of a contract related to the specific person. (¶0073 and ¶0078)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined system of McCagg et al., Psota et al. and Byun by including trading price of the stock as conditions for recruiting successors in accordance with the teaching of Abrahamsohn. This modification enables the system to match a candidate within a price range.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Application Publication US20100131418A1 (“McCagg et al.”) in view of US Application Publication US20170124527A1 (“Psota et al.”), in further view of US Application Publication US20220076518A1 (“Byun”) and US2008/0172415A1 (“Fakhari et al.”).
Regarding claim 8, McCagg et al. in view of Psota et al., and in further view of Byun discloses all limitations as described above. McCagg et al., Psota et al. and Byun do not explicitly disclose:
invalidating the succession results of matching result if the vote of the at least one interested party terminal is below a specified percentage.
However, Fakhari et al. discloses:
invalidating said matching result if the vote of the at least one interested party terminal is below a specified percentage. (Fig. 2 steps 85 and 90; ¶0036)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined system of McCagg et al., Psota et al. and Byun by including invalidating matching result if the vote of the interested party is below a specified percentage in accordance with the teaching of Fakhari et al.. This modification enables the system to reprocessing candidates matching.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20110153629A1 (“Lehmann et al.”) discloses a matching system and method for allocating drivers and passengers sharing a trip.
US20100121858A1(“Goettsch”) discloses a method for providing a virtual job market on a network comprising an application server and clients and/or electronic message systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YINGYING ZHOU whose telephone number is (571)272-5308. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00am - 5:00pm ET.
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, John W Hayes can be reached on 571-272-6708. 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.
/YINGYING ZHOU/Examiner, Art Unit 3697