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 .
Response to Amendment
All pending claims 1, 4-8, 10, 12, 14-17 and 20-27 filed November 20, 2025 are examined in this final office action necessitated by amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks filed November 20, 2025 with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 102 & 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made. Applicant’s remarks regarding recited prior art appear to only assertions without any specifics pertaining to the amendments.
The undersigned examiner is suggesting a telephonic interview for further assessment of the claims. Although there is no guarantee of reaching agreement on an allowance during the interview, it seems worthwhile to explore subject matter not yet examined that may help overcome rejections on the merits and subject matter eligibility.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 4-8, 10, 12, 14-17 and 20-27 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without adding significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to either a practical application of the abstract idea or significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Groupings of abstract ideas include: Mathematical Concepts, Mental Processes and Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity include:
Fundamental economic principles or practices,
Commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), and
Managing personal behavior or relationships or interaction between people (including social activities, teaching and following rules or instructions).
Mathematical Concepts
Mathematical relationships
Mathematical formulas
Mathematical calculations
Mental Processes
Concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)
Step 1
In the instant case, claim 1 is directed to a process. Analysis of claim 1 applies to analysis of claims 4-8, 10, 12, 14-17 and 20-27.
Step 2A Revised (First Prong)
Determine whether claim 1 is directed to a judicial exception. Elements of an abstract idea are underlined. See Analysis.
Step 2A Revised (Second Prong)
Determine whether claim 1 has additional elements (in italics) integrated into a practical application:
a) requires an additional element or a combination of elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manger that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception; and
b) uses the considerations laid out by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit to evaluate whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
See Analysis.
Step 2B (Revised)
In Step 2B, evaluate whether claim 1 recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept that adds significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Analysis
In Claim 1:
A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, from a user device, a user request comprising personal identification information (PII) associated with a first user and user criteria;
accessing, from one or more databases, service provider criteria associated with a plurality of service providers;
applying, by one or more computer processors, “a trained machine learning model” to determine a first set of service providers of the plurality of service providers based at least in part on the user request and the service provider criteria; and
generating and transmitting, to the first set of service providers, an alert including information associated with the first user or the user request;
generating a subset of the first set of service providers based at least in part on responses received from the first set of service providers within a response time period from when the alert was transmitted;
generating and transmitting, to the user device and by a computer network, presentation instructions configured to cause display of the subset of the first set of service providers and.
in response to receiving a selection of a first service provider of the subset of the first set of service providers, generating and transmitting, to the user device and to a service provider device of the first service provider by a computer network, a data packet comprising scheduling instructions for a meeting that, when executed, update electronic calendars associated with the first user and the first service provider.
In Step 2A (first prong) Claim 1 as a whole executes processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, are directed to abstract ideas related to commercial interactions and therefore fall under the grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
In Step 2A (second prong) Claim 1 executes methods that are directed to abstract ideas comprising processes that can be executed by a human while following a procedure that organizes human activity related to commercial interactions using conventional computing elements.
No evidence of an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field.
No evidence exists in the instant specification or claims of a particular machine.
No evidence exists of a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing.
The claim does not go beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, e.g. processor, device.
In Step 2B, claim 1 does not recite additional elements that amount to inventive concepts that are “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception. Claim 1 relies on conventional computer processing functions (sending/receiving data, formatting data, storing data, retrieving data, manipulating data, calculating, searching data, displaying data, organizing data) that courts have routinely found insignificant to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2360. As such, the claims amount to nothing significantly more than an instruction to implement the abstract idea across a generic computer network which is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
Conclusion
Accordingly, the examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in claims 1, 4-8, 10, 12, 14-17 and 20-27 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 4-8, 12, 15-17, 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar, US 10,600,105.
In Kumar see at least (underlined text is for quick reference):
Regarding claim 1: A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, from a user device, a user request comprising personal identification information (PII) associated with a first user and user criteria;
(Kumar: D65: col. 14, line 45-col. 15, line20) In some embodiments, the service provider matching engine 101 includes user provider data and preferences 118. In some embodiments, the user data and preferences 118 can include data related to customers or users, such as one or more of the following: account login information, contact information, financial information (including credit card information bank account information, for example), address(es), contact information of people that may be overseeing any work done (if any), uploaded calendar information, or the like. In some embodiments, the user data and preferences 118 can include preferences related to customers or users, such as one or more of the following: preferred gender of service providers (this can be limited to select services, for example), preferred financing options, contract and contract terms preferences, preferred geographic area to select service providers based on (so that the service provider does not need to travel a far distance and risk delaying a booked service, for example), preferred times for services to be performed (this can be set by location as well, for example), or the like. In some embodiments, stored preferences for a customer may include relative weights that should be applied by the matching engine to various data types or fields when the engine attempts to match a service request of that customer to a provider. For example, preferences for a given customer may indicate that the particular customer highly values the rating of a service provider and is not particular price sensitive, such that the matching engine may heavily weight service provider rating and apply a low weight to affordability or price when finding a match for service requests from that customer. In some embodiments, such data and preferences can be stored in the matching database 124 or the data store 114, for example.
accessing, from one or more databases, service provider criteria associated with a plurality of service providers;
(Kumar: D30: col. 8, line 58-col. 9, line 6) The service provider matching system 102 may include one or more service provider matching engines 101 enabling the matching of customers, service providers, and/or subcontractors (for example, other service providers). In some embodiments, a service provider matching engine 101 can host and maintain a matching database 124 configured to store information associated with the service provider matching engines 101 and the service provider matching system 102. The matching database 124 can include service provider data and preferences, user data and preferences, user search criteria and past user search criteria, generated contacts, executed contracts, matching data used to match service providers with customers or service providers with subcontractors, display instructions, financing data and options, crime monitoring results and criteria, service provider location and availability, or the like.
(Kumar: D210: col. 40, lines 25-52) Financial services including: accounting services; savings & loan services; securities, commodity contracts, and other financial investments and related activities services; social assistance savings & loan services; monetary authorities—central bank services; funds, trusts, and other financial vehicle services; insurance services; credit intermediation and related services; venture capital services; repair and maintenance social assistance savings & loan services; retail trade social assistance savings & loan services; scenic and sightseeing transportation social assistance savings & loan services; specialty trade contractor savings & loan services; sporting goods, hobby, book, and music store savings & loan services; support activities for mining savings & loan services; support activities for transportation savings & loan services; telecommunications savings & loan services; textile mills savings & loan services; trade, transportation, and utilities savings & loan services; transit and ground passenger transportation savings & loan services; transportation equipment manufacturing savings & loan services; transportation and warehousing savings & loan services; truck transportation savings & loan services; utilities savings & loan services; animal production credit intermediation and related services; commercial banks services; hedge fund services; finance/credit companies services; private equity & investment firm services; securities & investment services; and insurance & real estate services stock brokers/investment industry services.
applying, by one or more computer processors, a trained machine learning model to determine a first set of service providers of the plurality of service providers based at least in part on the user request and the service provider criteria;
(Kumar: D60: col. 13, line 47-col. 14, line 5) In some embodiments, the service provider matching system 102 includes a service provider matching engine 101. The service provider matching engine 101 can include service provider data and preferences 116, user data and preferences 118, a machine learning component 120, user search criteria 122, and a matching database 124. In some embodiments, the service provider matching engine 101 can be configured to process requests received from a customer system 140 and match the associated customer with a service provider. In some embodiments, the matching can be based on one or more of: service provider data and preferences 116, user data and preferences 118, and user search criteria 122. Also, in some embodiments, the matching can use a machine learning component 120 to improve matching over time based on the various inputs and criteria that is used for the matching. In some embodiments, the provider matching engine 101 and/or the service provider matching system 102 can match customers to service providers based on availability and calendar data associated with the customer and/or service provider and the type of service. For example, if a customer requests a 2-hour project, the provider matching engine 101 and/or the service provider matching system 102 can match a customer to a service provider at a recommended time that fits both the customer's and service provider's schedule based on their availability.
(Kumar: D148: col. 28, lines 63-65) In some embodiments, the listing 440 of matched service providers can include all matched service providers determined by the service provider matching system.
Please note: For examination purposes, all matched service providers are a first set of service providers.
generating and transmitting, to the first set of service providers, an alert including information associated with the first user or the user request;
(Kumar: D110: col. 22, lines 51-54) In block 216, the service provider matching system can process the request received from the customer system the service provider matching system can determine a list of service providers.
(Kumar: D111: col. 23, lines 1-4) In block 218, the service provider matching system contacts at least a subset of the list of service providers to determine whether the service provider is available and/or interested in performing the requested service. Please note: System contact qualifies as an alert.
generating a subset of the first set of service providers based at least in part on responses received from the first set of service providers within a response time period from when the alert was transmitted;
(Kumar: D50: col. 11, lines 59-66) In some embodiments, a customer can create a request for a service that specifies a time window (for example, 1 day, 1 week, 1 month, or the like) to accept bids. The bids can either be private and hidden or public and available for other service providers and/or customers to view. At the expiration of the designated time window, the lowest bid can be automatically selected by the service provider matching system 102.
(Kumar: D112: col. 23, lines 26-28) In block 220, the service provider matching system can process each service provider's response and transmit a list of service providers to the customer system.
Given that Kumar’s system a) issues a time window for service provider bid responses and at expiration of the time window selects a service provider who responded to the system’s request, and b) receives responses from a subset of service providers to an initial request (block 216), it would have been obvious to try, by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to establish a response time period for the subset of providers and incorporate it into the system of Kumar since there are a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the recognized need and one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. Obviousness under 35 USC 103 in view of the Supreme Court decision KSR International Co. vs. Teleflex Inc.
generating and transmitting, to the user device and by a computer network, presentation instructions configured to cause display of the subset of the first set of service providers on a graphical user interface; and
(Kumar: D72: col. 16, lines 16-24) Based on a threshold value, the service providers with a matching score above the threshold can be presented to a customer for selection.
(Kumar: D135: col. 26, line 44) Graphical User Interface Examples for Customer System
(Kumar: D136: col. 26, lines 45-63) FIGS. 4A-4C illustrate example graphical user interfaces of the service provider matching system from FIGS. 1, 2A-2B, and 3A-3B, according to various embodiments of the present disclosure. The graphical user interface can be presented on any device capable of displaying the interface (for example, desktops, laptops, tablets, phones, PDAs, or the like). In some embodiments, the graphical user interfaces may be generated by the service provider matching system 102 and sent to a customer system 140 for display and user interaction, while in other embodiments the user interfaces may be generated by a browser or application operating on a customer system 140. Elements shown in FIGS. 4A-4C include a subset of the possible combinations, placements, and orientations of data and it should be appreciated that additional information can be requested by the service provider matching system or entered/submitted by a customer system. Further, it should be appreciated that in some embodiments, less information can be requested by the service provider matching system.
in response to receiving a selection of a first service provider of the subset of the first set of service providers, generating and transmitting, to the user device and to a service provider device of the first service provider by a computer network, a data packet comprising scheduling instructions for a meeting that, when executed, update electronic calendars associated with the first user and the first service provider.
(Kumar: D60: col. 13, line 63-col. 14, line 5) … In some embodiments, the provider matching engine 101 and/or the service provider matching system 102 can match customers to service providers based on availability and calendar data associated with the customer and/or service provider and the type of service. For example, if a customer requests a 2-hour project, the provider matching engine 101 and/or the service provider matching system 102 can match a customer to a service provider at a recommended time that fits both the customer's and service provider's schedule based on their availability. Please note: Data packets are used to communicate information across networks.
Regarding claim 4: Rejection is based upon the teachings and rationale applied to claim 1 by Kumar.
Regarding claim 5: Rejection is based upon the teachings and rationale applied to claim 1 by Kumar.
Regarding claim 6: Rejection is based upon the teachings and rationale applied to claim 1 by Kumar:
(Kumar: D60: col. 13, lines 60-63) … Also, in some embodiments, the matching can use a machine learning component 120 to improve matching over time based on the various inputs and criteria that is used for the matching.
(Kumar: D166: col. 31, lines 58-62) Customer feedback is received at step 516 including timeliness of the services. Payments to service providers are monitored in step 518. Services may be suspended to non-paying customers and service providers may be alerted to non-paying customers. Please note: Negative feedback on provider timeliness reflects a need for improvement in matching.
(Kumar: D220: col. 43, line 60-col. 45, line 3) In accordance with yet another aspect of the disclosure, there is provided a service provider referral service including reviews of service providers. The reviews may or may not identify the service provider until the customer selects the service provider to perform the services. The reviews may include satisfaction with work, cost, or completing time. The reviews may further include reports of erratic behavior, intoxication, or any undesirable behavior. Further, crimes reported following home services may be tracked to watch for a correlation between a given service provider and criminal activity.
(Kumar: D229: col. 45, lines 21-22) … and receiving customer feedback on contractor performance. Please note: Negative feedback on provider timeliness reflects a need for improvement in matching.
Regarding claim 7: Rejection is based upon the teachings and rationale applied to claim 2 by Kumar and further upon Kumar, see:
(Kumar: D148: col. 28, line 65-col. 29, line 3) In some embodiments, the listing 440 of matched service providers can include a subset of the total matched service providers determined by the service provider matching system. In some embodiments, the service provider matching system can determine a ranking or order based on a matching score.
Regarding claim 8: Rejection is based upon the teachings and rationale applied to claim 1 by Kumar and further upon Kumar, see:
(Kumar: D60: col. 13, line 67-col. 14, line 5) For example, if a customer requests a 2-hour project, the provider matching engine 101 and/or the service provider matching system 102 can match a customer to a service provider at a recommended time that fits both the customer's and service provider's schedule based on their availability.
Regarding claim 12: Rejection is based upon the teachings and rationale applied to claim 1 by Kumar and further upon Kumar, see:
(Kumar: D148: col. 29, lines 7-12) The matching score can also be based on qualities of the service providers. For example, a higher score may be applied to service providers with higher ratings (for example, ratings 450A, 450B, and 450C), or to service providers who are closer in distance (for example, 452) to the address where the work is requested to be performed.
(Kumar: D150: col. 29, lines 23-29) In some embodiments, ratings 450A, 450B, 450C can be included in the listing 440. For example, a star rating system can be displayed showing the average customer ratings for the particular matched listing. In some embodiments, customer ratings can be combined or supplemented with third party ratings downloaded or received from third party services (for example, Yelp, TripAdvisor, Google, or the like).
Regarding claim 15: Rejection is based upon the teachings and rationale applied to claim 13 by Kumar and further upon Kumar, see:
(Kumar: D117: col. 24, lines 30-34) In block 230, the service provider matching system can notify a service provider of selection by a customer and confirm a booked appointment. Details about the booked appointment can be transmitted to the customer system and the service provider system. Please note: Both customer and service provider are made aware of the scheduled appointment.
Regarding claim 16: Rejection is based upon the teachings and rationale applied to claim 13 by Kumar and further upon Kumar, see:
(Kumar: D49: col. 11, lines 55-58) A customer can then either accept or reject the bid. In some embodiments, information associated with the request for a service and bids can be stored in the data store 114. Please note: Pairing the customer with a service provider rejected by the customer does not occur.
(Kumar: D93: col. 19, line 60-col. 20, line 2) In step 4, at least a portion of the service provider systems 130 contacted can accept the work, communicate with the customer, propose an offer (or counter offer or counter proposal if the initial request had an offer), reject the work, or a combination.
Regarding claims 17 and 20: Rejections are based upon the teachings and rationale applied to claim 1 by Kumar and dependents of claim 1 reciting similar subject matter.
Regarding claim 21: Rejection is based upon the teachings and rationale applied to claim 1 by Kumar and dependents of claim 1 reciting similar subject matter.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar, US 10,600,105, in view of Nazer et al., US 2012/0158522 “Nazer.”
Rejection is based in part upon the teachings and rationale applied to claim 1 by Kumar and further upon the combination of Kumar-Nazer. Although Kumar does not expressly mention random selection of providers among top providers, Nazer on the other hand would have taught Kumar such techniques.
In Nazer see at least:
[Nazer: 0009] … If any of the bids meet or exceed the threshold value, or if any of the bidders separately elect the priority option, those bidders may be entered into a priority auction, in which the processor(s) may conduct a SPA to select a winner from among only those bidders. If none of the bidders elect the priority option, or if none of the bids meet or exceed the threshold value, then the processor(s) may perform operations to randomly select a winner from among the bidders with the top d bids.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that applying the known techniques of Nazer, which randomly selects a winning bidder among bidders with the top d bids, would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the techniques of Nazer to the teachings of Kumar would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such data processing features into similar systems. Obviousness under 35 USC 103 in view of the Supreme Court decision KSR International Co. vs. Teleflex Inc.
Claims 14 and 26 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar, US 10,600,105, in view of Lin, US 2023/0080929.
Rejections are based in part upon the teachings and ratioale applied to claims 1 and 24 by Kumar and further upon the combination of Kumar-Lin. Although Kumar’s system and methods facilitate communication via telephone, email, text, messaging applications, Kumar does not expressly mention the use of a video call. Lin on the other hand would have taught Kumar such techniques.
In Lin see at least:
[Abstract] A computer-implemented system and method for connecting clients with service providers is described herein. The system uses explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) to match clients and service providers, minimizing system bias. In addition to matching clients with service providers, the system also has tools for background checks, payment, scheduling, and goal setting.
[Lin: 0016] In accordance with yet another aspect, the system comprises at least one of scheduling tool, a communications tool, and a texting tool. It is possible for the system to schedule appointments for the service providers with the clients. In addition, communication between the service providers and the clients is possible. In an embodiment, communication is via text. In another embodiment, communication is via email. In yet another embodiment, communication is via messenger. In yet another embodiment, communication is via video. In yet another embodiment, communication is via text, email, video, and messenger.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that applying the known techniques of Lin, which facilitate communications via a video call, would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the techniques of Lin to the teachings of Kumar would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such data processing features into similar systems. Obviousness under 35 USC 103 in view of the Supreme Court decision KSR International Co. vs. Teleflex Inc.
Claims 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar, US 10,600,105, in view of Tenorio, US 7,149,744.
Rejections are based in part upon the teachings and rationale applied to claims 1 and 17 by Kumar and further upon the combination of Kumar-Tenorio. Although Kumar can access calendar programs or services (for example, through APIs) associated with the customer or service provider and update the corresponding calendar programs or services with the confirmed booking appointment, Kumar does not expressly mention the customer and the service provider exchanging encrypted files or documents. Tenorio on the other hand would have taught Kumar such techniques.
In Tenorio see at least:
(Tenorio: D12: col. 3, lines 44-58) A typical e-commerce transaction may involve a "matching" phase and a "transactional" phase. During the matching phase, a buyer 20 may search for a suitable product (meaning any good, real property, service, information, or other tangible or intangible thing that may be the subject of an e-commerce transaction) offered by one or more sellers 30, identify the most suitable seller 30 (which may involve, for example, identifying the seller 30 offering the lowest price), and contact that seller 30 to enter the transactional phase. During the transactional phase, the buyer 20 and seller 30 may negotiate a contract for the sale of the product (which may involve, for example, more clearly defining the subject of the transaction, negotiating a price, and reaching an agreement on supply logistics) and generate a legal document embodying the terms of the negotiated contract.
(Tenorio: D16: col. 5, lines 37-47) … Although the product data, seller data, and documents have primarily been described as being stored in seller databases 32, the present invention contemplates product and seller data and documents being stored in any suitable manner and being retrieved from any suitable sources. For example, system 10 may include a shared data repository 34 that contains product data and/or seller data that may be combined with data from one or more seller databases 32 and that contains documents that may compliment documents from one or more seller databases 32, as described in further detail below.
(Tenorio: D50: col. 16, line 36-col. 17, line 9) The standard documents and unique documents may contain confidential or competitive information including, but not limited to, the names of the buyer 20 and seller 30 involved in the transaction, the product purchased, the quantity purchased, and the purchase price. Since the documents are stored in shared document repository 35 and seller databases 32 the documents will be accessible to other buyers 20 and sellers 30 through GCD 42, the confidential information of buyer 20 and seller 30 needs to be protected before the documents become freely available to the other buyers 20 and sellers 30. Therefore, security module 41 encrypts the standard documents and the unique documents (or portions of the documents, as described below) when the documents are stored in shared document repository 35 and seller database 32. The buyers 20 and sellers 30 with whom the documents are associated are each given the required permission level to decrypt the documents so that the associated buyer 20 and seller 30 can view the documents in their entirety with the confidential information. This allows a buyer 20 the ability to use GCD 42 to search and view all the documents where buyer 20 was a party, which therefore adds a document storage and review element to e-commerce transaction system 10. A buyer's or seller's own documents (when a buyer or seller is a party to a document) may be referred to as user documents. A buyer 20 or seller 30 typically has full access to their associated user documents. For example, buyer's 20a own documents are user documents for buyer 20a and buyer 20a has full access to all of the user documents of buyer 20a because buyer 20a is a party to all transactions from which the documents resulted. The user documents of buyer 20a are third party documents to all other buyers 20 because all the other buyers 20 were not a party to the transactions of buyer 20a. Therefore, each buyer 20 has their own user documents where they were a party to the transaction and that buyer 20 possesses the required permission level to access the user documents. But when a buyer 20 is not party to a transaction, any documents resulting from that transaction become third party documents to that buyer 20 and a buyer 20 does not have permission to access and view third party documents in their entirety.
(Tenorio: D54: col. 18, lines 4-24) Having a buyer 20 only able to access user documents limits the functionality and usefulness of system 10 and would prevent a buyer 20 new to system 10 from taking advantage of the document storage and reuse function because that buyer 20 would not have any user documents to reuse. Therefore, it is desirable to provide a way for buyers 20 and sellers 30 to access and use third party documents while still protecting the confidential information in the documents. Intelligence module 47 allows buyers 20 and sellers 30 to access and reuse third party documents while still protecting the confidential or competitive info in the third party documents. Intelligence module 47 takes the third party documents and segments the third party documents into one or more sections to create generic documents from the third party documents. The generic documents allow buyers 20 to have limited access to third party documents. In creating the generic documents, intelligence module 47 examines a third party document and removes or encrypts information from the sections containing the confidential information and the sections specific to a particular transactions.
(Tenorio: D61: col. 20, lines 23-37) FIGS. 6A & 6B illustrate an example method for storing, classifying, and reusing documents using GCD 42. The method begins at step 102 when security module 41 encrypts the documents to control access to the documents, protect any confidential or competitive information contained in the documents and therefore not allow a buyer 20 who was not a party to the transaction from which the document originated to access or view the confidential information in the document. When the documents are encrypted, a permission level is assigned to each encrypted document so that if a buyer 20 has the required permission level, that buyer 20 can decrypt the document and view the document in its entirety. A buyer 20 will be given the required permission level for all the documents in which that buyer 20 was a party to the transaction involving the document. Therefore, a buyer 20 will have the requested permission level to access and view in their entirety all the user documents for that buyer 20. GCD server 40 stores the documents in one or more document repositories at step 104. For example, GCD server 40 may store the standard documents in shared document repository 35 and the unique documents in one or more seller databases 32. In addition, a buyer 20 or seller 30 may only use standard document, may only use unique documents, or the document may not be differentiated as such and only stored as documents.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that applying the known techniques of Tenorio, which a) encrypt transaction documents accessed by both a buyer and provider, and b) provide an encrypted file sharing service, would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the techniques of Tenorio to the teachings of Kumar would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such data processing features into similar systems. Obviousness under 35 USC 103 in view of the Supreme Court decision KSR International Co. vs. Teleflex Inc.
Claims 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar, US 10,600,105, in view of Desai, US 11,803,915.
Rejections are based in part upon the teachings and rationale applied to claims 1 and 17 by Kumar and further upon the combination of Kumar-Desai.
In Kumar see at least:
(Kumar: D37: col. 9, liens 48-53) In some embodiments, under certain conditions (for example, the cost exceeding a preconfigured threshold, the type of service, a customer with bad credit, a service provider's preference, a customer's preference, or the like, or a combination of various factors) varying options may be presented to a customer for paying for desired service(s).
(Kumar: D202: col.39, lines 19-27) In accordance with one aspect of the disclosure, there is provided a service provider referral service for any kind of service industry. In other embodiments, the service provider referral services may be targeted to one or more specific subsets or types of services. In various embodiments, the service providers described herein may include providers of any or all of the following example services, though less than these or others may be offered in different embodiments:
(Kumar: D210: col. 40, lines 25-52) Financial services including: accounting services; savings & loan services; securities, commodity contracts, and other financial investments and related activities services; …; private equity & investment firm services; securities & investment services; and insurance & real estate services stock brokers/investment industry services.
Although Kumar’s referral service applies to investment services, Kumar does not expressly mention updating profiles with investment data and investment goals. Desai on the other hand would have taught Kumar such techniques.
In Desai see at least:
(Desai: B5: col. 1, lines 61-66) For example, the systems and techniques of this disclosure may include an AI model configured to assess a client's perception of the riskiness of “familiar” securities, such as based on the client's investment history (e.g., the client's past investment decisions and the subsequent performance of those securities).
(Desai: D8: col. 4, lines 14-23) … In some examples, the questionnaire may request client data such as investment goals, strategies, capital amounts, or other personal client data. The questionnaire may also request data indicating past investment transactions for the client. In other examples, the client may provide historical investment data to computing system 108 through separate means (e.g., by submitting the data, linking profile accounts, etc.). Computing system 108 may be configured to store the received client data in database 102,
(Desai: D44: col. 13, lines 37-40) In some examples, system 300 is configured to receive data from a new investment client, indicative of the client's own investment goals, preferences, and/or strategies, or other personal interests (312).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that applying the known techniques of Desai, which update a client’s investment goals and profile, would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the techniques of Desai to the teachings of Kumar would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such data processing features into similar systems. Obviousness under 35 USC 103 in view of the Supreme Court decision KSR International Co. vs. Teleflex Inc.
Claims 26 and 27 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar, US 10,600,105, in view of Greenshields et al., US 2014/0143175 “Greenshields.”
Rejections are based in part upon the teachings and rationale applied to claims 1 and 17 by Kumar and further upon the combination of Kumar-Greenshields.
In Kumar see at least:
(Kumar: D37: col. 9, liens 48-53) In some embodiments, under certain conditions (for example, the cost exceeding a preconfigured threshold, the type of service, a customer with bad credit, a service provider's preference, a customer's preference, or the like, or a combination of various factors) varying options may be presented to a customer for paying for desired service(s).
(Kumar: D202: col.39, lines 19-27) In accordance with one aspect of the disclosure, there is provided a service provider referral service for any kind of service industry. In other embodiments, the service provider referral services may be targeted to one or more specific subsets or types of services. In various embodiments, the service providers described herein may include providers of any or all of the following example services, though less than these or others may be offered in different embodiments:
(Kumar: D210: col. 40, lines 25-52) Financial services including: accounting services; savings & loan services; securities, commodity contracts, and other financial investments and related activities services; …; private equity & investment firm services; securities & investment services; and insurance & real estate services stock brokers/investment industry services.
Although Kumar’s referral service applies to investment services, Kumar does not expressly mention displaying a visual indication of the investment data compared to the portfolio goal on a graphical user interface. Greenshields on the other hand would have taught Kumar such techniques.
In Greenshields see at least:
[Greenshields: 0129] In block 522, the computing device 110 indicates that the investor's retirement plan may be adequately funded. For example, turning to FIG. 2C, the results screen 280 indicates the essential plan is "ON TRACK" because the funded ratio with respect to that plan is greater than the minimum threshold value. By way of another non-limiting example, the computing device 110 may display a graphic representation of the investor's funded ratio. The graphic representation may be color coded with a color (e.g., green) that indicates the investor's retirement plan may be fully funded.
[Greenshields: 0134] In block 558, the computing device 110 indicates that the investor's retirement plan may be underfunded. For example, turning to FIG. 2C, the results screen 280 may indicate "CAUTION" with respect to a plan in block 558. By way of another non-limiting example, the computing device 110 may display a graphic representation of the investor's funded ratio. The graphic representation may be color coded with a color (e.g., yellow) that indicates the investor's retirement plan may be underfunded.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that applying the known techniques of Greenshields, which display on a graphical user interface color-coded portfolio performance compared with portfolio goals, would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the techniques of Greenshields to the teachings of Kumar would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such data processing features into similar systems. Obviousness under 35 USC 103 in view of the Supreme Court decision KSR International Co. vs. Teleflex Inc.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 10,198,763 (Amjadi) “Computer Program, Method and System for Matching Consumers with Service Providers,” discloses: A method for matching consumers with service providers, including the initial step of receiving service provider profile data from one or more service providers. Additional steps include: receiving service request data from a consumer; comparing, based on a matching criteria, the service request data with the service provider profile data to obtain a primary set of service providers; presenting, to the consumer, at least a portion of the service provider profile data of each of the service providers included in the primary set; receiving a selection by the consumer to transact with a first service provide; presenting information a request to the first service provider to either accept or reject to transact with the consumer; and obtaining a secondary set of service providers from the one or more service providers and presenting the secondary set of service providers to the consumer.
US 2023/0153869 (Rydin) “Methods and Systems for Recommending Products and Services, discloses: [Rydin: 0011] Aspects of the present disclosure are directed to generating product and service recommendations. In a preferred embodiment, a product and service recommendation system provides a user (consumer) with company recommendations based on the products and services (e.g., insurance, warranties, electronic devices, appliances, vehicles, furniture, tools, etc.) the company provides being similar to the products and services the user is interested in. The product and service recommendation system can collect information (or data) from the user and generate user specifications based on the information. For example, the user can provide information (e.g., personal information, types of home appliances, make and model of cars, whether they want health, vehicle, or home insurance, home security, personal information, etc.) into a product and service recommendation application, and the product and service recommendation system can generate user specifications based on the information. The product and service recommendation system can collect company information (e.g., products and services the company provides, fees for the products and services, policies, membership requirements, warranties, etc.) and generate a company schema. The product and service recommendation system generates a match score based on comparing the user specifications to the company schema. For example, when the company provides every product and service the user is looking for, the product and service recommendation system assigns a match score of 100%. When the company provides some of the products and services the user is looking for, the product and service recommendation system assigns a match score of less than 100%, such as 50% (e.g., when the company provides half of the products and services the user needs). The product and service recommendation system can present the user with a list of companies that provide the products and services, and the user can filter/sort the companies to select a company from the list.
PR Newswire, Item U, “First-of-Its-Kind Lawyer Network Launched Through USLaw.com Web Site,” discloses: "We're taking our quality on-line brand and building a bricks-and- mortar component, with a network of legal service providers that will change the way consumers and small businesses make use of the legal system,” said Neal J.B. Simon, president and CEO of USLaw.com. "Until now, when people needed a lawyer they had to perform the screening process on their own -- while not necessarily knowing the right questions to ask. The Affiliate Network will allow our customers to obtain complete legal solutions by selecting from among lawyers whose standards and consumer-focused ethic match the USLaw.com brand.”
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 ROBERT M POND whose telephone number is (571)272-6760. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30 AM-6:30 PM.
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 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.
/ROBERT M POND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688 March 5, 2026