DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claim 28 is currently amended.
Claims 1-20 have been canceled.
Claim 33 is newly added.
Claims 21-33 are currently pending and 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/06/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Examiner Note
On page 7 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant argues that it was not clear form the 05/06/2025 office action whether 28 was deemed to be allowable under section 101. Examiner notes that claim 28 was rejected under 35 USC 101 in the previous office action. For clarity of the record, Examiner has updated the “Allowable Subject Matter” section to read “Subject Matter Free of Prior Art” for both claims 28 and new claim 33 with additional information regarding the claims being rejected under 35 USC 101.
35 USC 101
Applicant's arguments filed 11/06/2025 with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On pages 8-9 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant argues that paragraphs [0003], [0005], [0006], [0007], and [0040] give detailed explanation of how the present invention reduces consumption of network resources, reduces network bandwidth, improves communication security across a computer network, and improves the efficiency of network traffic. Examiner disagrees that these cited portions of the specification provide sufficient explanation of there being an improvement in computer technology. Again, the statements made in these paragraphs are merely conclusory. There is no explanation in the Specification or the claims regarding how the computer/any other technology is improved. Instead, the Specification does general conclusory statements regarding reduced consumption of network resources/bandwidth without providing the technical detail of how the computer/additional elements accomplish that. Examiner suggests amending the claims to incorporate any technical detail of how the additional elements are working to make these improvements over previous computer capabilities (provided there is support for this in the Specification). For at least these reasons, Examiner maintains the previous 35 USC 101 rejection.
35 USC 103
Applicant's arguments filed 11/06/2025 with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Arora does not disclose “historical activities by the user on the computer system.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Arora is directed towards a system for implementing and electronic market involving market transactions. It is these transactions that are stored in the transaction database. Different client computers access the market via a website for buyers and sellers. See at least Abstract, [0034], [0042], [0046]-[0047], and [0050]. Therefore, Examiner maintains that Arora discloses “historical activities by the user on the computer system.” Additionally, Applicant argues that Arora does not use the transactions database for calculating a matching score but rather to recommend an optimal market for a given combination of goods and services. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The matching engine access the historical activities (e.g., transaction database) in order to determine matches between buyers and sellers. See at least paragraph [0046]-[0047], [0014], [0017], [0019], [0045], [0048]. For at least these reasons, Examiner maintains the previous 35 USC 103 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 21-33 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Under Step 1 of the eligibility analysis the claims are directed to statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03. Specifically, the method, as claimed in claims 21-33, is directed to the process.
While the claims fall within statutory categories, under Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis (MPEP 2106.04), the claimed invention recites the abstract idea of arbitrating a transaction between different users. Specifically, representative claim 21 recites the abstract idea of: a method of arbitrating transactions among a user and an authoring user only when an interaction occurs between the authoring user and the user who was exposed to data published by the authoring user, the method comprising the steps of:
Receiving a plurality of published data records published by a plurality of authoring users, at least some of the published data records including a set of required criteria that a target candidate user must satisfy and a set of desired criteria that a target candidate user should satisfy;
Receiving a plurality of candidate data records received and including personally identifiable information regarding each of a plurality of users;
Automatically calculating for each of at least some of the users, a score indicative of a match between the user and respective content associated with at least one of the published data records, the score being based in part on the set of required criteria or on the set of desired criteria;
Responsive to the score satisfying a criterion, automatically preparing and sending a communication to a target user including information regarding at least one of the published data records;
Responsive to sending the communication, tracking an action taken by the target user that received the communication;
Responsive to the action being sending the communication by the target user to a first of the candidate users of the plurality of candidate users, tracking the target user that exposed the first of the candidate users to the information regarding the at least one of the published data records by storing an association between the target user as an intermediary user and the first of the candidate users;
Responsive to the action being an interaction by the target user with the information regarding the at least one of the published data records, storing an indication that the target user is a candidate user;
Receiving an indication form the first of the authoring users of an occurrence of an actionable interaction between the first authoring user and the intermediary user or between the first authoring user and the candidate user;
Responsive to receiving the indication of the occurrence of the actionable interaction occurring between the first authoring user and the intermediary user, permitting a communication to occur among the firs authoring user and the intermediary user directly;
Wherein the score indicative of the match between the user and respective content associated with at least one of the published data records is further based on historical activities by the user.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis, it is necessary to evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception by referring to subject matter groupings enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a). The abstract idea identified above is considered to be a certain method of organizing human activity. Certain methods of organizing human activity include “fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).”” MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). In this case, the abstract idea recited in representative claim 21 is a certain method of organizing human activity because permitting a transaction to occur between different users is a sales activity and/or relates to business relations. Thus, representative claim 21 recites an abstract idea.
Additionally, the abstract idea identified above is also considered to be a mental process. Mental processes are “concepts performed in the human mind (including observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)”. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). In this case, calculating a score indicative of a match, tracking actions taken by the target user, tracking the user, storing the user as a specific type of user based on interactions, and permitting a transaction based on received indications of occurrences is a type of observation and evaluation. Thus, representative claim 21 recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the eligibility analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, it is then necessary to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. MPEP 2106.04(d). The courts have identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application include limitations merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.04(d). In this case, representative claim 21 includes additional elements such as a computer, an encrypted electronic transaction, an electronic data system, computer server system, published electronic data records, computer network, candidate electronic data records, online source, electronic communication, electronic memory device. Although reciting such additional elements, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant's specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. Similar to the limitations of Alice, representative claim 21 merely recites a commonplace business method (i.e., permitting a transaction) being applied on a general-purpose computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, the claimed additional elements are merely generic elements and the implementation of the elements merely amounts to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. Since the additional elements merely include instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, the abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application.
Under Step 2B of the eligibility analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception that is not integrated into a practical application of that exception, it is then necessary to evaluate the additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). MPEP 2106.05. In this case, as noted above, the additional elements recited in independent claim 21 are recited and described in a generic manner merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of representative claim 21 do not add anything that is not already present when they considered individually. In Alice, the court considered the additional elements “as an ordered combination,” and determined that “the computer components...‘ad[d] nothing. ..that is not already present when the steps are considered separately’... [and] [v]iewed as a whole...[the] claims simply recite intermediated settlement as performed by a generic computer.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217, (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1972). Similarly, when viewed as a whole, representative claim 1 simply conveys the abstract idea itself facilitated by generic computing components. Therefore, under Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, there are no meaningful limitations in representative claim 1 that transforms the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
As such, representative claim 21 is ineligible.
Dependent Claims 22-32 do not aid in the eligibility of independent claim 21. For example, claims 22-32 merely further define the abstract limitations of claim 21.
Furthermore, it is noted that certain dependent claims include additional elements supplemental to those recited in independent claim 21: electronic entity recognition component (claim 31), electronic mail (claim 32). However, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. These additional elements are merely generic elements and are likewise described in a generic manner in Applicant’s specification. Additionally, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 22-30 do not recite additional elements supplemental those recited in claim 21. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the reasons described above with respect to claim 21.
Thus, dependent claims 22-32 are also ineligible.
Independent claim 33 recites the same abstract idea represented in representative claim 21. Independent claim 33 recites the same additional elements as claim 21. The additional elements in Independent claim 33 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the reasons described above with respect to claim 21. Thus, independent claim 33 is also ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 21-27 and 29-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnston (US 2010/0114739) in view of Arora et al. (US 2002/0013760) , and further in view of Bukai (US 2014/0289867).
Regarding Claim 21, Johnston discloses A computer-implemented method of arbitrating encrypted electronic transactions among a user and an authoring user of an electronic data system only when an interaction occurs between the authoring user and the user who was exposed to data published by the authoring user, the computer-implemented method comprising the steps of: (Johnston: see at least paragraph [0002] (i.e., methods and systems), [0300], [0301] (i.e., process revenue sharing between seller, OWJO, service providers))
receiving at a computer server system a plurality of published electronic data records over a computer network published by a plurality of authoring users, at least some of the published electronic data records including a set of required criteria that a target candidate user must satisfy and a set of desired criteria that a target candidate user should satisfy (Johnston: see at least paragraph [0020] (i.e., artists can sell all types of media and digital content such as music, video, images, podcasts, vodcasts and documents), [0035]-[0036] (i.e., specify price seller wishes to sell the content for as well as possible subscriptions (e.g., required criteria and desired criteria)), [0044] (i.e., one or more servers), [0114]-[0115] (i.e., platform includes a server);
responsive to the score satisfying a criterion, automatically preparing and sending by the computer system an electronic communication to a target user including information regarding at least one of the published electronic data records (See at least Fig. 3G & 3H disclosing ability for seller to prepare their published work and send it to intermediary users electronically, paragraph [0148] disclosing promoting content, [0150] disclosing seller promote storefront to all of their friends and send relevant targeted ads to content consumers who purchase their content (e.g., satisfy criteria of purchase), [0156] disclosing promote to social networking contacts, [0159], [0163], [0165], [0174], [0192] disclosing targeted to specific profiles of user, [0194], [0209], [0226]);
responsive to sending the electronic communication, tracking by the computer server system an action taken by the target user that received the electronic communication; (Johnston: see at least paragraph [0021] (i.e., purchase from social networking site widget by buyer), [0032], [0040], [0045], [0300] (i.e., buyer purchases media), [0118]-[0119] (i.e., storage to provide interface to and communicate with any one or more third parties, providers, locations, buyers and seller), [0176]-[0177] (i.e., real-time sales tracking and analysis), [0181], [0300]-[0301])
responsive to the action being sending the electronic communication by the target user to a first of the candidate users of the plurality of candidate users, tracking the target user that exposed the first of the candidate users to the information regarding the at least one of the published electronic data records by storing an association in an electronic memory device between the target user as an intermediary user and the first of the candidate users (Johnston: see at least paragraph [0118]-[0119] (i.e., storage to provide interface to and communicate with any one or more third parties, providers, locations, buyers and seller), [0176]-[0177] (i.e., real-time sales tracking and analysis), [0181], [0300]-[0301]);
responsive to the action being an interaction by the target user with the information regarding the at least one of the published electronic data records, storing an indication in the electronic memory device that the target user is a candidate user; (Johnston: see at least paragraph [0118]-[0119] (i.e., storage to provide interface to and communicate with any one or more third parties, providers, locations, buyers and seller), [0176]-[0177] (i.e., real-time sales tracking and analysis), [0181], [0300]-[0301]).
receiving, at the computer system, an indication from a first of the authoring users of an occurrence of an actionable interaction between the first authoring user and the intermediary user or between the first authoring user and the candidate user (Johnston: see at least paragraph [0021] (i.e., purchase from social networking site widget by buyer), [0032], [0040], [0045], [0300] (i.e., buyer purchases media));
responsive to receiving the indication of the occurrence of the actionable interaction occurring between the first authoring user and the intermediary user, the computer system permitting an encrypted electronic communication to occur among the first authoring user and the intermediary user directly or using the computer system as a proxy for the electronic communication(Johnston: see at least paragraph [0219] (i.e., proxy accounts, proxy buyer), [0300]-[0301] (i.e., revenue sharing and commission distributed));
Johnston does not expressly provide for automatically calculating by the computer server system, for each of at least some of the users, a score indicative of a match between the user and respective content associated with at least one of the published electronic data records, the score being based in part on the set of required criteria or on the set of desired criteria; and wherein the score indicative of the match between the user and respective content associated with at least one of the published electronic data records is further based on historical activities by the user on the computer system.
However, Arora discloses automatically calculating by the computer server system, for each of at least some of the users, a score indicative of a match between the user and respective content associated with at least one of the published electronic data records, the score being based in part on the set of required criteria or on the set of desired criteria (Arora: see at least paragraph [0014] (i.e., match scores), [0015] (i.e., seller importance values and default importance values), [0016] (i.e., buyer importance values), [0017] (i.e., computer match scores), [0019] (i.e., seller that is best match for buyer), [0033]-[0036] (i.e., administrator matches buyers and sellers), [0045] (i.e., preferences and selections from sellers and information from buyers are forwarded to matching engine), [0047], [0048] (i.e., seller prefers high profit margin; matching engine then returns match information to the customer which includes list of cars that most closely accommodate customer and seller preferences as assigned importance weights), [0049] (i.e., weights assigned by sellers), [0061], [0068] (i.e., seller preferences such as price, availability, and margin (e.g., required and desired criteria), [0075]-[0078], [0089] (i.e., auto calculate)); and wherein the score indicative of the match between the user and respective content associated with at least one of the published electronic data records is further based on historical activities by the user on the computer system (See at least paragraphs Abstract, [0034], [0042], [0046]-[0047] disclosing the matching engine accessing information in the transaction database to use when determining matches between buyers and sellers, [0050] disclosing transaction database contains previous transaction information (e.g., historical activities)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Johnston with the relevancy score calculation, as taught by Arora, since such a modification would have only united elements of the prior art, with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results including improved efficiency on alerting users to large numbers of items available (Arora: see at least paragraph [0007], [0008], [0013], [0059], [0071]).
Neither Johnston nor Arora expressly provide for receiving, over the computer network or another network, a plurality of candidate electronic data records received from at least one online source and including personally identifiable information regarding each of a plurality of users; and an encrypted transaction.
However, Bukai discloses receiving, over the computer network or another network, a plurality of candidate electronic data records received from at least one online source and including personally identifiable information regarding each of a plurality of users (Bukai: see at least paragraph [0059] (i.e., crawl web pages and collect buyer related identifying information such as contact information, etc. from social networks such as Facebook) and an encrypted transaction (Bukai: see at least paragraph [0022]-[0023] (i.e., encrypt data), [0083] (i.e., encryption of transaction information)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Johnston and Arora with encrypting the transaction, as taught by Arora, since such a modification would have only united elements of the prior art, with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results including safer purchasing and information retrieval (Bukai: see at least paragraph [0002]-[0003]).
Regarding Claim 22, Johnston, Arora, and Bukai teach or suggest all of the limitations of claim 21. Additionally, Johnston discloses responsive to receiving the indication of the actionable interaction occurring between the first authoring user and the candidate user, the computer server system permitting and thereby causing another electronic transaction to occur among the first authoring user and the candidate user using the computer system server for the another electronic transaction. (Johnston: see at least paragraph [0023], [0025], [0032] (i.e., buyer purchases content or subscriptions), [0045] (i.e., complete purchase).
Neither Johnston nor Arora expressly provide for the transaction to be an encrypted electronic transaction and the using the computer server system as a proxy for the another encrypted electronic transaction. However, Bukai discloses encrypted electronic transaction and the using the computer server system as a proxy for the another encrypted electronic transaction (Bukai: see at least paragraph [0022], [0083] (i.e., encrypt buyer’s authentication data features and transaction information), [0095] (i.e., checkout process directly with buyer or through proxy)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Johnston and Arora with encrypting the transaction, as taught by Arora, since such a modification would have only united elements of the prior art, with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results including safer purchasing and information retrieval (Bukai: see at least paragraph [0002]-[0003]).
Regarding Claim 23, Johnston, Arora, and Bukai teach or suggest all of the limitations of claim 21. Additionally, Johnston discloses responsive to receiving the indication of the actionable interaction occurring between the first authoring user and the intermediary user, the intermediary user and the first authoring user completing an electronic transaction directly between one another (Johnston: see at least paragraph [0023], [0025], [0032] (i.e., buyer purchases content or subscriptions), [0045] (i.e., complete purchase).
Neither Johnston nor Arora expressly provide for the transaction to be an encrypted electronic transaction. However, Bukai discloses encrypted electronic transaction (Bukai: see at least paragraph [0022], [0083] (i.e., encrypt buyer’s authentication data features and transaction information), [0095] (i.e., checkout process directly with buyer or through proxy)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Johnston and Arora with encrypting the transaction, as taught by Arora, since such a modification would have only united elements of the prior art, with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results including safer purchasing and information retrieval (Bukai: see at least paragraph [0002]-[0003]).
Regarding Claim 24, Johnston, Arora, and Bukai teach or suggest all of the limitations of claim 21. Additionally, Johnston discloses wherein the indication of the interaction includes an indication from the authoring user that the candidate user satisfies at least some of the criteria set forth in the required criteria or the desired criteria or both (Johnston: see at least paragraph [0023], [0025], [0032] (i.e., buyer purchases content or subscriptions), [0045] (i.e., complete purchase)).
Regarding Claim 25, Johnston, Arora, and Bukai teach or suggest all of the limitations of claim 21. Johnston does not expressly provide for wherein the set of required criteria includes a geographic location. However, Arora discloses wherein the set of required criteria includes a geographic location (Arora: see at least paragraph [0017] (i.e., computer match scores based on location information), [0054] (i.e., calculate match based on distance between buyers and sellers), [0095] (i.e., sellers of carpentry services might be paired with buyers according to location and other factors that make a given seller a better match with a given buyer)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Johnston with the evaluation of criteria, as taught by Arora, since such a modification would have only united elements of the prior art, with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results including improved efficiency on alerting users to large numbers of items available (Arora: see at least paragraph [0007], [0008], [0013], [0059], [0071]).
Regarding Claim 26, Johnston, Arora, and Bukai teach or suggest all of the limitations of claim 25. Johnston does not expressly provide for wherein the actionable interaction occurs at or proximate to the geographic location. However, Arora discloses wherein the actionable interaction occurs at or proximate to the geographic location (Arora: see at least paragraph [0017] (i.e., computer match scores based on location information), [0054] (i.e., calculate match based on distance between buyers and sellers), [0095] (i.e., sellers of carpentry services might be paired with buyers according to location and other factors that make a given seller a better match with a given buyer)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Johnston with the evaluation of criteria, as taught by Arora, since such a modification would have only united elements of the prior art, with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results including improved efficiency on alerting users to large numbers of items available (Arora: see at least paragraph [0007], [0008], [0013], [0059], [0071]).
Regarding Claim 27, Johnston, Arora, and Bukai teach or suggest all of the limitations of claim 21. Johnston does not expressly provide for wherein the actionable interaction is an interaction in the physical world. However, Arora disclose wherein the actionable interaction is an interaction in the physical world (Arora: see at least paragraph [0029] (i.e., physical world)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Johnston with the evaluation of criteria, as taught by Arora, since such a modification would have only united elements of the prior art, with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results including improved efficiency on alerting users to large numbers of items available (Arora: see at least paragraph [0007], [0008], [0013], [0059], [0071]).
Regarding Claim 29, Johnston, Arora, and Bukai teach or suggest all of the limitations of claim 21. Johnston does not expressly provide for wherein the score indicative of the match between the user and respective content associated with at least one of the published electronic data records is further based on correlations between at least some of the personally identifiable information in the candidate electronic data record associated with the candidate user and a corresponding weight assigned to each of the set of required criteria and the set of desired criteria, responsive to the user being the candidate user (Arora: see at least paragraph [0014] (i.e., match scores), [0015] (i.e., seller importance values and default importance values), [0016] (i.e., buyer importance values), [0017] (i.e., computer match scores), [0019] (i.e., seller that is best match for buyer), [0033]-[0036] (i.e., administrator matches buyers and sellers), [0045] (i.e., preferences and selections from sellers and information from buyers are forwarded to matching engine), [0047], [0048] (i.e., seller prefers high profit margin; matching engine then returns match information to the customer which includes list of cars that most closely accommodate customer and seller preferences as assigned importance weights), [0049] (i.e., weights assigned by sellers), [0061], [0068] (i.e., seller preferences such as price, availability, and margin (e.g., required and desired criteria), [0075]-[0078], [0089] (i.e., auto calculate)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Johnston with the relevancy score calculation, as taught by Arora, since such a modification would have only united elements of the prior art, with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results including improved efficiency on alerting users to large numbers of items available (Arora: see at least paragraph [0007], [0008], [0013], [0059], [0071]).
Regarding Claim 30, Johnston, Arora, and Bukai teach or suggest all of the limitations of claim 29. Johnston does not expressly provide for receiving, at the computer system, a modification to the set of the required criteria and the set of the desired criteria; and automatically recalculating a new score based on a correlation between (a) at least some of the information extracted from the respective candidate electronic data record posted online by the candidate user and (b) weighted ones of the modified sets of required and desired criteria.
However, Arora discloses receiving, at the computer system, a modification to the set of the required criteria and the set of the desired criteria; and automatically recalculating a new score based on a correlation between (a) at least some of the information extracted from the respective candidate electronic data record posted online by the candidate user and (b) weighted ones of the modified sets of required and desired criteria (Arora: see at least paragraph [0014] (i.e., match scores), [0015] (i.e., seller importance values and default importance values), [0016] (i.e., buyer importance values), [0017] (i.e., computer match scores), [0019] (i.e., seller that is best match for buyer), [0033]-[0036] (i.e., administrator matches buyers and sellers), [0045] (i.e., preferences and selections from sellers and information from buyers are forwarded to matching engine), [0047], [0048] (i.e., seller prefers high profit margin; matching engine then returns match information to the customer which includes list of cars that most closely accommodate customer and seller preferences as assigned importance weights), [0049] (i.e., weights assigned by sellers), [0061], [0068] (i.e., seller preferences such as price, availability, and margin (e.g., required and desired criteria), [0075]-[0078], [0089] (i.e., auto calculate) [0018] (i.e., repeating steps to search for total match scores), [0053], [0054] (i.e., change factors), claim 52 (i.e., change weights)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Johnston with the relevancy score calculation, as taught by Arora, since such a modification would have only united elements of the prior art, with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results including improved efficiency on alerting users to large numbers of items available (Arora: see at least paragraph [0007], [0008], [0013], [0059], [0071]).
Regarding Claim 31, Johnston, Arora, and Bukai teach or suggest all of the limitations of claim 21. Johnston does not expressly provide for wherein the automatically calculating the score includes receiving from an electronic entity recognition component a numeric value indicating an extent of a relevancy match between (a) information extracted from the candidate electronic data record associated with the candidate user and (b) at least one of the set of required criteria or the set of desired criteria.
However, Arora discloses wherein the automatically calculating the score includes receiving from an electronic entity recognition component a numeric value indicating an extent of a relevancy match between (a) information extracted from the candidate electronic data record associated with the candidate user and (b) at least one of the set of required criteria or the set of desired criteria (Arora: see at least paragraph [0051] (i.e., numeric value)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Johnston with the relevancy score calculation, as taught by Arora, since such a modification would have only united elements of the prior art, with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results including improved efficiency on alerting users to large numbers of items available (Arora: see at least paragraph [0007], [0008], [0013], [0059], [0071]).
Regarding Claim 32, Johnston, Arora, and Bukai teach or suggest all of the limitations of claim 21. Additionally, Johnston discloses wherein the electronic communication is an electronic mail (See Johnston paragraph [0209], [0225], [0228]-[0230], [0233]-[0234], [0272], [0274]).
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
Claim 33 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action. Claim 28 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of subject matter free of prior art:
“wherein the historical activities includes a number of engagements made by the intermediary user between the first authoring user and the candidate user, responsive to the user being the intermediary user” is neither disclosed nor rendered obvious by the prior art of record.
Johnston (US 2010/0114739) discloses automatically calculating an intermediary score indicative of a number of the plurality of candidate users which resulted in at least an encrypted electronic transaction occurring between the first intermediary user and each of the subset of the authority users (Johnston: see paragraph [0299], [0300], Fig. 11A). Arora et al. (US 2002/0013760) discloses weights assigned to the sets of first and second criteria (Arora: see paragraph [0014], [0075], [0048]). Bukai (US 2014/0289867) discloses an encrypted transaction (Bukai: see paragraph [0022]-[0023], [0083]). Joa et al. (US 2014/0164089) discloses sets of criteria being ranked by first of plurality of authoring users (Joa: see paragraph [0049]). “Magic Cap Used In New Handheld Communicators” discloses use of electronic surrogates to perform intelligent tasks such as screening, routing, and delivering electronic correspondence as well as shopping for goods and services. See Anonymous, Magic Cap Used In New Handheld Communicators, Newsbytes, 06 Jan 1994. Neither Johnston, Arora, Bukai, Joa, “Magic Cap Used In New Handheld Communicators”, nor any of the other cited references teach or suggest, or otherwise render obvious wherein the historical activities includes a number of engagements made by the intermediary user between the first authoring user and the candidate user, responsive to the user being the intermediary user.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRITTANY E BARGEON whose telephone number is (571)272-2861. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am to 6:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey A Smith can be reached at (571) 272-6763. 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.
/B.E.B/Examiner, Art Unit 3688
/Jeffrey A. Smith/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3688