DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
In the response filed 1/16/2026, claims 1, 3, and 5-10 have been amended. Claims 2 and 4 have been canceled. Claims 1, 3, and 5-10 are pending and addressed below.
Response to Amendments
The claim objections set forth in the previous office action have been withdrawn.
In response to the amendments, the 35 USC § 112(b) rejections set forth in the previous office action have been withdrawn.
Further, the previous 35 USC § 103 rejection has been withdrawn in response to the current amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with regards to the 35 USC § 101 rejections set forth in the previous office action have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amended independent claims - which involve executing an iterative, time-bound matching workflow that builds two ordered priority structures, generates alternative priority permutations only within a bounded score-difference window, runs a first and second matching process, caches matching results and skips re-execution, computes matching result evaluation values and stores them, and enforces a time limit and, when exceeded, stops the processing, and excludes values in the most recent threshold values when interrupted by a time limit – do not recite abstract ideas that fall within the grouping of the MPEP. Rather, it is argued that this is a specific computational mechanism that defines how the device performs matching.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As an initial matter, the features argued are narrower that what is included in the pending claims. While the claim does include a repeating (iterative) and time-bound process (time limits, elapsed time) process and does recite that in repeating matching process it does not perform the second matching process again for a combination of priorities for which a matching result has already been obtained and stored in the at least one memory, and storing the matching result evaluation values in the at least one memory, the claim does not include building two ordered priority structures, generating alternative priority permutations only within a bounded score-difference window, or caching matching results.
Looking to the specification, the examiner is unable to find language about building two ordered priority structures, generating alternative priority permutations only within a bounded score-difference window, or caching matching results per se. The specification does include on page 18, for example, setting priorities including third priorities that are changes to the set of priorities for users and fourth priorities that are changes to the set of priorities for institutions, but does not disclose building structures per se about these priorities. While priorities can be altered and the specification discloses difference in scores, the specification does not use the language bounded score-difference window. Also, while the specification may include discussion in paragraphs [0149]-[0154], for example, of the time limit being exceeded and the process being interrupted, as well as results not being stored to the DB or being stored to the DB, the specification does not explicitly use the term caching or disclose temporary data storage.
As to the claims reciting an abstract idea, the claims do include limitations that reasonably fall within the mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity groupings for Step 2A, Prong One (see 35 USC § 101 rejection below showing the limitations identified as reciting the abstract idea). With regard to certain methods of organizing human activity, the claimed matching process of using priorities and thresholds to generate scores related to desired conditions of users who receive a service involves following rules or instructions in a matching process to effectively match resources (users and institutions, for example) based on information. With regard to mental processes, the claimed data analysis of the matching process of using priorities and thresholds to generate scores related to desired conditions of users who receive a service is claimed in a general manner such that it could be performed in the human mind, and further involves observations, evaluations, and judgements. It is noted that claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. Here, the additional elements are included in the claim at a high level of generality, as discussed further below.
Applicant also argues that even if the claims recite an abstract idea, the amended features integrate any recited abstract idea into a practical application because they constrain the matching computation to a concrete computer implemented solution and address the problem of computational explosion that makes trying all combination infeasible in real time (by avoiding recomputation through cache-aware execution, exclusion rules, and preventing redundant computation - see pages 15-16 of the arguments). The claims provide significantly more at step 2B for similar reasons.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted above, the specification does include discussion in paragraphs [0149]-[0154], for example, of the time limit being exceeded and the process being interrupted, as well as the concept of when a large number of combinations of scores corresponding to the determination condition exist, the number of times the process is repeated is enormous and a transition between steps may be performed before all matching results and matching result evaluation values corresponding to the user threshold value Ft=10 points are stored in the DB; however, the specification does not explicitly use the term caching or disclose temporary data storage.
It is understood that the second matching process is not performed again for a combination of priorities for which a matching result has already been obtained and stored in the at least one memory, which does broadly reflect the concept of the number of times the process needing to be repeated being enormous. However, the claims do not include additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea that achieve the purported technical result. Further, considering the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, the claim does not specifically recited cache-aware execution and the additional elements that prevent redundant computation. As set forth below, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more because the computer elements (device, memory, storing in the at least one memory, processor, instructions, computer-readable medium) are generic computing elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
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, 3, and 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, specifically the claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to Step 2A, Prong One, claim 1 9 and 10 recites an abstract idea. The claim limitations that recite the abstract idea are:
set first priorities by arranging scores in a descending order which are scores assigned based on desired conditions of a plurality of users who receive a service and which are assigned respectively to a plurality of providers serving the service, and also to set second priorities by arranging scores in the descending order which are scores assigned based on desired conditions of the plurality of providers and which are assigned respectively to the plurality of users;
set at least one of third priorities in which priorities of the plurality of providers are interchanged based on differences of the scores assigned in the first priorities and fourth priorities in which priorities of the plurality of users are interchanged based on differences of the scores assigned in the second priorities;
perform a first matching process based on combinations of the first priorities and the second priorities and also to perform a second matching process based on combinations of the third priorities and the second priorities, combinations of the first priorities and the fourth priorities, or combinations of the third priorities and the fourth priorities, as a matching process for matching the plurality of users and the plurality of providers; and
select, as a final matching result, one of a first matching result acquired by the first matching process and a second matching result acquired by the second matching process,
wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to:
set the third priorities by interchanging priorities of respective providers for which the differences of the scores assigned in the first priorities are in a range of a first threshold value, and set the fourth priorities by interchanging priorities of respective users for which the differences of the scores assigned in the second priorities are in a range of a second threshold value;
repeat setting of the third priorities in a period until an elapsed time concerning an execution of the matching process exceeds a time limit, when the first threshold value gradually increases from an initial setting value and the second threshold value is also set to 0, and perform the first matching process in the period and also repeat the second matching process based on a combination of the third priorities and the second priorities;
in repeating the second matching process in the period, not perform the second matching process again for a combination of priorities for which a matching result has already been obtained and stored in the at least one memory (noting this is not claiming the active storing of data in the memory, just that it was previously stored);
calculate, for matching results obtained by the first matching process and second matching process, respective matching result evaluation values and records the matching result evaluation values in association with the corresponding matching results;
measure the elapsed time since the matching process has started, and in a case where the measured elapsed time exceeds the time limit, stop at least one of (i) a process concerning a change of the first threshold value and (ii) a process concerning calculation of the matching result evaluation values, and cause selection of the final matching result;
exclude, from process targets concerning the selection of the final matching result, one or more matching result evaluation values corresponding to a most recent value of the first threshold value in which the process is interrupted by the time limit.
The elements above recite an abstract idea. Specifically, the identified elements recite an abstract idea relating to Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). They future recite Certain methods of organizing human activity – managing relationships between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
Dependent claims 3 and 5-8 recite limitations further narrow the abstract idea above.
As a result, claim 1, 3, and 5-10 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One.
With respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, claims 1, 9, and 10 includes the additional elements of a device, memory, storing in the at least one memory, processor, instructions, computer-readable medium. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, alone and in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the computer elements are generic computing elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claims 1, 9, and 10 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two.
Further, claims 3 and 5-8 do not include any additional elements beyond those discussed with respect to independent claims 1, 9 and 10. Thus, claims 1, 3, and 5-10 are directed to an abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2B, claims 1, 9, and 10 do not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted above, claims 1, 9, and 10 include the additional elements of a device, memory, storing in the at least one memory, processor, instructions, computer-readable medium. The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the computer elements are generic computing elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claims 1, 9, and 10 do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Further, claims 3 and 5-8 do not include additional elements beyond those discussed with respect to independent claims 1, 9 and 10. Thus, claims 1, 3, and 5-10 do not provide additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1, 5, and 5-10 are rejected as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Subject Matter Allowable over the Prior Art
Claims 1, 3, and 5-8 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter over the prior art:
McBride (US 2013/0006916) discloses filtering, selecting, and presentation of vendors based on user and vendor characteristics. The best vendors for customer (priorities) are ranked based on scores considering attributes and characteristics of customer and dealer. Both the “best vendors for the customer” (probability of sale) and “most highly interested customers” (probability of buying) are accounted for in the rankings. McBride does not specifically disclose that the priorities of the plurality of providers are interchanged based on differences of the scores assigned in the first priorities and the priorities of the plurality of users are interchanged based on differences of the scores assigned in the second priorities. Further, while McBride discloses priorities and scoring, McBride does not disclose repeating the setting of the third priorities in a period until an elapsed time concerning an execution of the matching process exceeds a time limit, when the first threshold value gradually increases from an initial setting value and the second threshold value is also set to 0, and also repeating the second matching process based on the combination of the third priorities and the second priorities, when the first threshold value gradually increases from the initial setting value and the second threshold value is also set to 0.
Mehta (US 2014/0129462) is directed to candidate screening and discloses that once the scores are computed, the candidates are ranked, and high-ranking candidates are presented. If all the candidates get a low score, below a given or determined threshold, their scores are recomputed and the candidates are re-ranked. The high-ranking candidates may then be presented to a user. While Mehta discloses this re-calculation and rescoring process, Mehta does not disclose repeating the setting of the third priorities in a period until an elapsed time concerning an execution of the matching process exceeds a time limit, when the first threshold value gradually increases from an initial setting value and the second threshold value is also set to 0, and also repeating the second matching process based on the combination of the third priorities and the second priorities, when the first threshold value gradually increases from the initial setting value and the second threshold value is also set to 0.
Further, the claims 1, 9 and 10 would not be considered obvious based on the references above and those references further noted on record, when considering each claim as a whole and specifically the features quoted above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BETH V BOSWELL whose telephone number is (571)272-6737. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM - 4:30PM.
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, Tariq Hafiz can be reached at (571) 272-5350. 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.
/BETH V BOSWELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights