DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice for all US Patent Applications filed on or after March 16, 2013
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 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.
Status of the Claims
This communication is in response to communications received on 3/24/26. Claims 1-2, 4-17, and 21-29 are amended, claims 18-20 are cancelled, no new claims have been added, and applicant does not provide any information on where support for the amendments of all claims except claim 1 can be found in the instant specification as claim 1 is amended to include elements of cancelled claims 18-20. Therefore, Claims 1-17 and 21-30 are pending and have been addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant’s remarks, filed 3/24/26, with respect to rejections under 35 USC 102 and 103 for claim(s) 1-30 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Examiner respectfully withdraws rejections under 35 USC 102 and 103 for claim(s) 1-30.
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant’s remarks, filed 3/24/26, with respect to rejections under 35 USC 101 for claim(s) 1-30 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as far as they apply to the amended 101 rejection(s) below.
Applicant respectfully traversed the rejection on pg. 10-15.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees because while the claims may improve a process the improvement is applying equations via a computer (processor) and merely including the processor triggers apply it.
Applicant is relying on 2106.05(d) “well understood, routine, and conventional” however Examiner is relying on 2106.05(f) “apply it.” Examiner relied on “apply it” because of item (2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process of 2106.05(f).
Thus, the argument(s) are unpersuasive.
Claims Without Prior Art Rejections
Claims 1-17 and 21-30 do not have prior art rejections. The remaining rejections are 101 as noted below.
Closest prior art to the invention include
Wood et al. (US 2002/0045154 A1) in view of SurveyMonkey published October 29, 2014 (reference U on the Notice of References Cited) and Lange et al. (US 2021/0209562 A1) for claim(s) 1-17 and 21-30.
Regarding claim 1 (amended), none of the references teaches items iii and v-vi (previously claim 20)
wherein the score of c) is generated by
i) on the processor, calculating question-specific similarity factors based on similarity or difference between the response data of the source group and the response data of the target group;
ii) on the processor, calculating question-specific importance factors with respect to the source group based on distribution of the response data for the source group;
iii) on the processor, adjusting the question-specific similarity factors of i) for the source group based on the question-specific importance factors with respect to the source group of ii);
iv) on the processor, calculating question-specific importance factors with respect to the target group based on distribution of the response data for the target group;
v) on the processor, adjusting the question-specific similarity factors of i) for the target group based on the question-specific importance factors with respect to the target group of iv); and
vi) on the processor, combining scores derived from the question-specific similarity factors for the source group as adjusted in iii) and the question-specific similarity factors for the target group as adjusted in v).
Regarding claim 17, Lange (US 2021/0209562 A1) [0124-0126] teaches scoring based on global deviations and global average however it is not in the field of interest of the invention.
However, none of the references teach the score is generated from
i) question-specific relevance factors with respect to the source group that represent weights that reflect amount of separation in the response data of the source group relative to question-specific global averages and deviations, and
ii) question-specific relevance factors with respect to the target group that represent weights that reflect amount of separation in the response data of the target group relative to the question-specific global averages and deviations.
21. A method according to claim 1, wherein: …
A) … accumulating question-specific similarity factors with respect to the source group as adjusted in iii) for a plurality of questions and accumulating question-specific importance factors with respect to the source group for a plurality of questions; and/or
B) … accumulating question-specific similarity factors with respect to the target group as adjusted in v) for a plurality of questions and accumulating question-specific importance factors with respect to the target group for a plurality of questions; and/or
C) … combining scores derived from the accumulating of A) and the accumulating of B).
Regarding claims 23 and 25,
a) Survey Monkey [pg 3 and 5] teaches weights and separation in the responses of a group relative to a question- specific global averages and deviations and
b) Lange (US 2021/0209562 A1) [0124-0126] teaches scoring based on global deviations and global average however it is not in the field of interest of the invention.
However none of the references teaches
23. A method according to claim 22, wherein:
the question-specific factors with respect to the source group comprise question- specific relevance factors with respect to the source group that represent weights that reflect amount of separation in the response data of the source group relative to a question- specific global averages and deviations.
25. A method according to claim 24, wherein:
the question-specific factors with respect to the target group comprise question- specific relevance factors with respect to the target group that represent weights that reflect amount of separation in the response data of the target group relative to a question- specific global averages and deviations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-17 and 21-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter as noted below.
The limitation(s) below for representative claim(s) 1 that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is directed to characterizing compatibility between a source group and a target group based on professional traits.
Step 1: The claim(s) as drafted, is/are a process (claim(s) 1-17 and 21-30 recites a series of steps).
Step 2A – Prong 1: The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) (emphasis added):
Claim 1: a computer-implemented method for characterizing compatibility between a source group and a target group, the method comprising:
a) on a processor, for each given individual of the source group, interacting with the given individual of the source group to obtain and store response data to an electronic-form questionnaire related to a predefined set of professional traits;
b) on the processor, for each given individual of the target group, interacting with the given individual of the target group to obtain and store response data to the same or similar electronic- form questionnaire related to the predefined set of professional traits;
c) on the processor, processing the response data for the source group and the response data for the target group to generate a score related to compatibility of the source group and the target group;
d) on the processor, processing the response data for the source group and the response data for the target group to assign professional traits to labels that relate to compatibility of the source group and the target group for highlight purposes; and
e) on the processor, presenting for display the score of c) together with additional information for evaluation of compatibility of the source group and the target group, wherein the additional information is based on the assignment of professional traits to the labels in d):
wherein the score of c) is generated by
i) on the processor, calculating question-specific similarity factors based on similarity or difference between the response data of the source group and the response data of the target group;
ii) on the processor, calculating question-specific importance factors with respect to the source group based on distribution of the response data for the source group;
iii) on the processor, adjusting the question-specific similarity factors of i) for the source group based on the question-specific importance factors with respect to the source group of ii);
iv) on the processor, calculating question-specific importance factors with respect to the target group based on distribution of the response data for the target group;
v) on the processor, adjusting the question-specific similarity factors of i) for the target group based on the question-specific importance factors with respect to the target group of iv); and
vi) on the processor, combining scores derived from the question-specific similarity factors for the source group as adjusted in iii) and the question-specific similarity factors for the target group as adjusted in v).
Dependent claims 2-17 and 21-30 recite the same or similar abstract idea(s) as independent claim(s) 1 with merely a further narrowing of the abstract idea(s): .
The identified limitations of the independent and dependent claims above fall well-within the groupings of subject matter identified by the courts as being abstract concepts of:
a method of organizing human activity (commercial or legal interactions including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, or business relations) because the invention is directed to economic and/or business relationships as they are associated with characterizing compatibility between a source group and a target group based on professional traits.
Step 2A – Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The additional elements unencompassed by the abstract idea include computer-implemented, processor, electronic form (claim(s) 1), social network, platform, or service (claim(s) 3), electronic form (claim(s) 4).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2 fails to describe:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine – see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo.
Thus the additional elements as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2 are merely (as additionally noted by instant specification [0042, 00199, 00210-00211]) invoked as a tool and/or general purpose computer to apply instructions of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment, and/or mere application of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological field do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(f)&(h)).
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus the additional elements as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2 are merely (as additionally noted by instant specification [0042, 00199, 00210-00211]) invoked as a tool and/or a general purpose computer to apply instructions of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment, and/or mere application of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological field do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application and thus similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons as set forth above (MPEP 2106.05(f)&(h)).
Conclusion
When responding to the office action, any new claims and/or limitations should be accompanied by a reference as to where the new claims and/or limitations are supported in the original disclosure.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP §706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES WEBB whose telephone number is (313)446-6615. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10-3.
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, Jerry O’Connor can be reached on (571) 272-6787. 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.
/J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3624
/Jerry O'Connor/Supervisory Patent Examiner,Group Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights