DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claim 21 is currently amended.
Claims 1-20 have been canceled.
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 .
Response to Arguments
35 USC 101
Applicant's arguments and amendments filed 05/18/2026 with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that in Step 2A, Prong 1 the office action improperly oversimplifies the claims by reducing it to “arbitrating a transaction between different users” and omitting key limitations such as “weighted correlation between extracted features… and criteria”, “automatically identified entities form candidate data”, and “data structure linking the intermediary user to the candidate user based on transmission of the electronic communication”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Prong 1 of Step 2A is used to evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception (e.g., abstract idea). It is not required that every limitation recite an abstract idea. Rather, when determining whether a claim “recites” an abstract idea, the Office Action must identify the specific limitation or limitations in the claim that the examiner believes recites and abstract idea and determine whether the identified limiation9s) fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the PEG. If the identified limitation9s) fall within any of the groupings of abstract ideas, the analysis proceeds to Prong two at which point it is appropriate to identify additional limitations. Claim limitations that do not fall within the enumerated groupings are not treated as abstract ideas. Here, Examiner identified specific limitations that recite abstract ideas and identified which enumerated grouping they fall into, specifically, some of the limitations recite certain methods of organizing human activity and some of the limitations recite a mental process. The claims were not oversimplified or generalized because direct limitations were analyzed as part of the abstract idea and not simply “arbitrating a transaction.”
Applicant further argues that the claims do not recite a mental process. While Examiner does not necessarily agree with Applicant’s argument, in light of current amendments, Examiner has removed the mental process grouping of abstract ideas from the rejection. Examiner notes that the claims still recite limitations directed towards certain methods of organizing human activity.
Applicant argues that the claims are integrated into a practical application because the claimed invention recites a specific data-processing architecture including feature extraction from a candidate data, weighted correlation scoring, transmission-based relationship tracking, persistent storage in a defined data structure, and conditional transaction enablement based on tracked relationships. Applicant argues that there are specific improvements to network data routing and reducing unnecessary data dissemination and improves efficiency of connecting relevant users. Applicant argues the claimed invention is analogous to DDR Holdings and recites an improvement in data structures per Enfish. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. MPEP 2106.04(d)(1). The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art, and conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. Id.
In this case, Applicant’s specification provides no explanation of an improvement to the functioning of a computer or other technology. Rather, the claims focus “on a process that qualifies as an ‘abstract idea’ for which computers are merely invoked as a tool”. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, (Fed. Cir. 2016) citing Enfish at 1327, 1336. While Applicant’s Specification discloses network bandwidth being consumed more efficiently, this merely represents a conclusory statement. There is no actual detail provided regarding how the claimed invention is providing any improvement to the functioning of the computer/other technology, thereby making the statements conclusory. The improvements regarding improvements in processing and routing information are not technological improvements. Although the claims include computer technology such as aa computer, electronic data system, computer network, computer server system, data structure in an electronic memory device, encrypted electronic transaction, published data records, candidate electronic data records, online source, and electronic communication, such elements are merely peripherally incorporated in order to implement the abstract idea. This is unlike the improvements recognized by the Courts in cases such as Enfish, Core Wireless, and McRO. Unlike these precedential cases, neither the specification nor the claims of the instant invention identify such a specific improvement to computer capabilities. The instant claims are not directed to improving “the existing technological process” but are directed to improving the commercial task of arbitrating transactions. It’s further noted that the specification describes the general components of the system as being implemented on any electronic device or type of memory. See Specification paragraph [0032]-[0033]. For example, there is no improvement to the computer, memory device, or data structure. Examiner notes that the Specification does not disclose Applicant’s recited data structure that links the users in the claims. Rather, the Specification merely discloses the memory storing associations between the users. See paragraph [0007]. While these additional elements are used, it is how the transactions are arbitrated/permitted that is an improvement. The claimed process is utilizing known computing systems and memory devices to improve commercial interactions. This is not an internet-centric problem being solved. As such, the claims do not recite specific technological improvements.
Additionally, Applicant argues that the claims recite significantly more and that per Bascom, the claims recite an ordered combination of feature extraction and entity identification, weighted correlation scoring, targeted communication, transmission-based tracking, relational data structure storage, and conditional transaction enablement. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In BASCOM, the Court found that, although individually the additional elements were a generic computer, network, and Internet components that did not amount to significantly more, the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of the various computer components for filtering internet content did amount to significantly more. BASCOM Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, in making such a determination, the Court noted that “the claims do not merely recite the abstract ide of filtering content along with the requirement to perform it on the Internet or to perform it on a set of generic computer components”. Id. Instead, the claims in BASCOM carved out a specific location for the filtering system (a remote ISP server) and required the filtering system to give users the ability to customize filtering for their individual network accounts which was a technical improvement to prior art filters that were either susceptible to hacking and dependent on local hardware and software or confined to an inflexible one-size-fits-all scheme. Id. The Court noted that the “patent describes how its particular arrangement of elements is a technical improvement over prior art ways of filtering such content.” Id. In contrast, Applicant’s claims do not describe how the particular arrangement of elements is a technical improvement and the claims, in fact, only merely recite the abstract idea of arbitrating transactions along with the requirement to perform it on a set of generic computer components, as discussed previously. For example, Applicant’s claims merely recite steps of a method with generic computer components being recited in a generic manner. While the computing components are included within the claims, they are claimed in a generic manner and merely perform generic functions. Applicant’s disclosure does not articulate or suggest how these additional elements function, individually or in combination, in any manner other than using generic functionality nor does the disclosure articulate how the elements are particularly arranged in order to provide a technical improvement. Applicant argues that the inventive concept provided by the claims is to construct new relationships between users and use those relationships to control system behavior which are transformative operations on data. However, there is nothing to describe why the actions taken are non-generic processing steps. As such, the comparison of Appellant’s claims to BASCOM is inapposite. When the claims are analyzed both individually and in an ordered combination they do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Applicant argues that Claim 33 is eligible for additional reasons such as historical activity based logic that effectively discloses a closed-loop system. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 33 includes limitations directed to certain methods of organizing human activity. While Claim 33 includes the requirement of measuring engagement events across a network and using those measurements, this is not a technical improvement. There is no actual improvement to how the engagement events are measured across a network. Rather, the improvement is in the data of those events/how that information is used, not on how that data is actually measured/obtained. For at least these reasons, Examiner maintains the rejection of claim 33.
Finally, Applicant argues that the office action does not follow USPTO guidance. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner identified and quoted exact limitations directed to the abstract idea and which enumerated grouping and then continued on in prong 2 to analyze the various additional elements. Applicant argues that the office action states elements are “generic” without proper analysis under Berkheimer. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Berkheimer focused on determining whether an additional element represents a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. Examiner notes that the rejection does not evaluate the additional elements as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in Step 2B because the claims were not found to be directed to insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, prong 2. Therefore, that type of analysis/rejection in Step 2B is not warranted. However, Examiner notes that the additional elements in Applicant’s Specification are described in a generic manner with no actual improvement to the hardware itself. See paragraphs [0032]-[0033].
For at least these reasons, Examiner maintains the previous 35 USC 101 rejection.
35 USC 103
Applicant's arguments and amendments filed 05/18/2026 with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Johnston, nor any other of the previously cited prior art disclose the newly amended limitation of a data structure that links the intermediary user to the first candidate user based on the sending of the electronic communication. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Johnston discloses tracking actions/communications taken between different user and storing exposure relationships. See at least paragraph [0118]-[0119] (i.e., storage (e.g., OWJO storage) to provide interface to and communicate with any one or more third parties, providers, locations, buyers and seller), [0159] & [0174] disclosing embedded links can directly feed consumer to storefront of seller, [0176]-[0177] (i.e., real-time sales tracking and analysis), [0181], [0246] disclosing use of links to generate presence on the identified third party hosts and a seller’s populated storefront widgets to one or more web sites to have content available and viewable to buyers, [0255] disclosing links such as hyperlinked texts or buttons etc. to redirect buyers, [0280], [0282] disclosing format of information and links to documents etc. on platform,[0284], [0286], [0289]-[290], [0295] disclosing memory module pat of OWJO platform or the OWJO storage[0300]-[0301]. Johnston further discloses that tracked information in transactions and permitting encrypted electronic communications to occur. See at least paragraph [0219] (i.e., proxy accounts, proxy buyer), [0300]-[0301] (i.e., revenue sharing and commission distributed)).
Applicant argues that the combination of Johnston, Arora, and Buka lacks motivation, requires hindsight, and fails to teach the claimed system architecture. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As shown in the rejections below, the examiner has established a prima facie case of obvious and has used the rationale as set forth in KSR v. Teleflex (i.e., combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results) and the proposed modification would not change the principle operation of the prior art.
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, wherein the score is calculated using a weighted criterion among extracted features of the candidate data records, the set of required criteria, and the set of desired criteria, the extracted features including identified entities from the candidate data records;
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, link the intermediary user to the first candidate user based on the sending of the communication;
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.
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, data structure in an 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 § 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 21-32 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites: “wherein the data structure links the intermediary user to the first candidate user based on the sending of the electronic communication”. The claimed limitations represent new matter because a review of the originally filed disclosure does not describe any data structure links. While the originally filed disclosure describes stored associations, the disclosure does not describe a data structure that links the intermediary user to the first candidate user.
Therefore, the subject matter of the claim, recited above, does not conform to the disclosure in such a manner in which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed limitations as being what the Applicant adequately described as the invention or what the Applicant actually had possession of at the time of the invention. Applicant’s failure to disclose a data structure that links the users raises questions whether Applicant truly had possession of this feature at the time of filing and thereby fails to comply with the written description requirement (see MPEP 2163: II(3)(a)).
Claims 22-32 inherit the deficiencies of claim 1.
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 a data structure in an electronic memory device between the target user as an intermediary user and the first of the candidate users, wherein the data structure links the intermediary user to the first candidate user based on the sending of the electronic communication (Johnston: see at least paragraph [0118]-[0119] (i.e., storage (e.g., OWJO storage) to provide interface to and communicate with any one or more third parties, providers, locations, buyers and seller), [0159] & [0174] disclosing embedded links can directly feed consumer to storefront of seller, [0176]-[0177] (i.e., real-time sales tracking and analysis), [0181], [0246] disclosing use of links to generate presence on the identified third party hosts and a seller’s populated storefront widgets to one or more web sites to have content available and viewable to buyers, [0255] disclosing links such as hyperlinked texts or buttons etc. to redirect buyers, [0280], [0282] disclosing format of information and links to documents etc. on platform,[0284], [0286], [0289]-[290], [0295] disclosing memory module pat of OWJO platform or the OWJO storage, [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, wherein the score is calculated using a weighted criterion among extracted features of the candidate electronic data records, the set of required criteria, and the set of desired criteria, the extracted features including automatically identified entities form the candidate electronic data records; 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, wherein the score is calculated using a weighted criterion among extracted features of the candidate electronic data records, the set of required criteria, and the set of desired criteria, the extracted features including automatically identified entities form the candidate electronic data records; (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), [0018] disclosing repeating steps to search for total 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), [0051] (i.e., numeric value), [0054] disclosing change factors, [0056] disclosing the matching, identification, and scoring between entities, [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 discloses 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
/KELLY S. CAMPEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691
Prosecution Insights