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 .
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-9 are objected to because of the following informalities: In the ninth line of claim 1, “indicating a selected a plan” should be “indicating a selected plan”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 10-18 are objected to because of the following informalities: In the tenth line of claim 10, “indicating a selected a plan” should be “indicating a selected plan”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 19 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: In the eighth line of claim 19, “indicating a selected a plan” should be “indicating a selected plan”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims are directed to an abstract idea. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not recite additional elements that are sufficient to raise the claimed invention to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The following 35 U.S.C. 101 analysis is performed in accordance with section 2106 of the Manual of Patent Examination Procedure (concerning Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance). First, it is determined that the claims are directed to a statutory category of invention. See MPEP 2106.03 (II). In the instant case, claims 1-9 are directed to a system comprising a mobile computing device, and therefore fall within the statutory category of machine. Claims 10-18 are directed to a non-transitory storage medium with instructions stored thereon, and therefore fall within the statutory category of article of manufacture. Claims 19 and 20 are directed to a method, and therefore fall within the statutory category of process. Therefore, claims 1-20 are directed to statutory subject matter under Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo test. (Step 1: YES).
The claims are then analyzed to determine whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.04. The claims are analyzed to evaluate whether they recite a judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong One) as well as analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong Two). See MPEP 2106.04.
Next, under Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, the claims are analyzed to determine whether there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05. The instant claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for at least the following reasons.
Beginning with Step 2A, Prong One, the claims recite a system, non-transitory storage medium, and method for matching a user who has at least one selected requirement with a list of available service providers based on the at least one selected requirement, receiving user input indicating a selected plan of service and a selected service provider, and transmitting the selected plan of service to the selected service provider, thereby facilitating commercial interactions between users and service providers. Therefore, the claims are directed commercial interactions, an abstract idea in the category of certain methods of organizing human activity. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES)
Proceeding to Step 2A, Prong Two, independent claim 19 recites: “A method comprising: receiving, at a mobile computing device, user input data associated with a user, the user input data including at least one selected requirement; receiving, at the mobile computing device, third-party data from individual service providers; creating a list of available individual service providers based on the at least one requirement of the user input data and the third-party data; receiving user input indicating a selected [plan] of service and a selected individual service provider from the list of available individual service providers; and transmitting, via a communication link, the selected plan of service to the selected individual service provider.” Independent claims 1 and 10 are parallel to claim 19. Claim 19 does not recite any of the specific limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application, and does not otherwise apply or use the judicial exception in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Claim 19 recites the use of a mobile computing device and a communications link, but these are recited at a high level of abstraction, without details of structure, and an abstract idea does not become non-abstract merely because a computer is involved in applying it, as the Supreme Court ruled in Alice Corporation v. CLS Bank. This also applies to the other independent claims and to their respective dependents. (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO)
Proceeding to Step 2B, independent claim 19, as quoted above, recites three receiving steps, which are not in themselves inherently technological (without the “mobile computing device”), a step of creating a list, which is not in itself technological, and a step of transmitting, via a communication link, the selected plan of service to the selected service provider. The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090,1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network). Hence, the three steps of receiving and the step of transmitting require only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional functions and technology. The specifics of what is received and what is transmitted do not involve any particular technology.
Biehl et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0259823) discloses (paragraph 56, emphasis added), “In one or more embodiments, the computer 300 may be implemented within the form factor of a server, a desktop or a mobile computing device well known to persons of skill in the art. In an alternative embodiment, the computer 300 may be implemented based on a laptop or a notebook computer.” Hence, mobile computing devices were well-understood, routine, and conventional technology prior to inventors’ earliest priority data. The step of creating a list of available individual service providers based on the at least one requirement of the user input data and the third-party data is not in itself technological. Huttunen et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0087972) discloses (paragraph 37, emphasis added), “The mobile device uses conventional mobile data communication link for transmitting acquired image frames to a server 52.” Hence, communication links were well-understood, routine, and conventional technology prior to inventors’ earliest priority data. The limitations of claim 19, whether considered separately or in combination with each other, do not raise the claimed invention to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 20, which depends from claim 19, recites that the method further comprises providing a review of the selected plan of service to the selected individual service provider, wherein the review includes user feedback of the selected individual service provider for the selected plan of service. The review need not be technological, and the action of providing can be performed by (for example) receiving or transmitting data over a network, which, as set forth above with regard to claim 19, requires only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional functions and technology. Hence, the limitations of claim 20, whether considered separately or in combination with each other and with the limitations of claim 19, do not raise the claimed invention to significantly more than an abstract idea. (Step 2B: NO for claims 19 and 20)
Independent claim 1 recites “A system comprising: a mobile computing device configured to: [perform operations directly parallel to the steps of method claim 19].” Hence, the operations of claim 1 require only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional functions and technology, as set forth above with respect to claim 19, and based on the same judicial precedents applied to claim 19, also as set forth above. Biehl et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0259823) discloses (paragraph 56, emphasis added), “In one or more embodiments, the computer 300 may be implemented within the form factor of a server, a desktop or a mobile computing device well known to persons of skill in the art. In an alternative embodiment, the computer 300 may be implemented based on a laptop or a notebook computer.” Hence, mobile computing devices were well-understood, routine, and conventional prior to inventors’ earliest priority date. Huttunen et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0087972) discloses (paragraph 37, emphasis added), “The mobile device uses conventional mobile data communication link for transmitting acquired image frames to a server 52.” Hence, communication links were well-understood, routine, and conventional technology prior to inventors’ earliest priority data. The limitations of claim 1, whether considered separately or in combination with each other, do not raise the claimed invention to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 2, which depends from claim 1, recites that the mobile computing device is further configured to provide a review of the selected plan of service to the selected individual service provider, wherein the review includes user feedback of the selected individual service provider for the selected plan of service. The review need not be technological, and the action of providing can be performed by (for example) receiving or transmitting data over a network, which, as set forth above with regard to claims 19 and 1, requires only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional functions and technology. Hence, the limitations of claim 2, whether considered separately or in combination with each other and with the limitations of claim 1, do not raise the claimed invention to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 3, which depends from claim 1, recites that the mobile computing device is further configured to receive a summary of the selected plan of service from the selected individual service provider after the selected plan of service has been performed at the mobile computing device. Such receiving a summary can be performed by (for example) receiving or transmitting data over a network, which, as set forth above with regard to claim 19 and claim 1, requires only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional functions and technology. Claim 4, which depends from claim 3, recites that the mobile computing device is further configured to transmit the summary of the selected plan of service, via the communications link, to a server, wherein the summary of the selected plan of service can be accessed by the user and the selected individual service provider. The transmitting can be performed by (for example) receiving or transmitting data over a network, which, as set forth above with regard to claim 19 and claim 1, requires only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional functions and technology. Huttunen et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0087972) again establishes communication links as having been well-understood, routine, and conventional (paragraph 37) prior to inventors’ earliest priority date. Carricarte et al. (U.S. Patent 10,795,864) discloses (column 1, lines 20-24, emphasis added), “Client terminals having software applications that access data stored on remote servers are well-known. The client terminals access the Internet or other remote networks to obtain web-based application data that is stored on remote servers.” Hence, accessing the selected plan of service by the user and the selected individual service provider requires only well-understood, routine, and conventional technology. The limitations of claim 3 and 4, whether considered separately or in combination with each other and with the limitations of claim 1, do not raise the claimed invention to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 5, which depends from claim 1, recites that the mobile computing device is further configured to allow the user to change the selected plan of service before selected plan of service is performed. Such changing need not be in itself technological. Hence, the limitation of claim 5, whether considered separately or in combination with the limitations of claim 1, does not raise the claimed invention to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 6, which depends from claim 1, recites that the mobile computing device is further configured to allow the user to create a user personal profile comprising one or more types of haircut. Creating such a user personal profile need not be in itself technological. Hence, the limitation of claim 6, whether considered separately or in combination with the limitations of claim 1, does not raise the claimed invention to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 7, which depends from claim 1, recites that the mobile computing device is further configured to allow the user to provide feedback related to the selected plan of service performed, and the feedback is provided to the selected individual service provider. The operations of providing can be performed by (for example) receiving or transmitting data over a network, which, as set forth above with regard to claim 19 and claim 1, requires only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional functions and technology. Claim 8, which depends from claim 7, recites that the mobile computing device is further configured to receive a response to the feedback from the selected individual service provider. The receiving can be performed by (for example) receiving or transmitting data over a network, which, as set forth above with regard to claim 19 and claim 1, requires only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional functions and technology. Claim 9, which depends from claim 8, recites that the mobile computing device is further configured to allow the feedback and the response to be posted on one or more social media platforms. Salameh et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0149321) discloses (paragraph 193, emphasis added), “Comments are then posted automatically by network-based social media platform 202 through predefined processes 592 of network-based social media platform 202 in well known conventional manner.” Salameh further discloses (paragraph 216, emphasis added), “The wanted ad is then posted automatically by network-based social media platform 202 through predefined processes 592 of network-based social media platform 202 in well known conventional manner, including generating well known conventional dialog box (FIG. 12B-3) to enable browsing client device 108 to ‘share’ the wanted ad with networked client device 108c on network-based social media platform 202.” Hence, allowing the feedback and the response to be posted on one or more social media platforms would require only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional technology. The limitations of claims 7, 8, and 9, whether considered separately or in combination with each other and with the limitations of claim 1, do not raise the claimed invention to significantly more than an abstract idea. (Step 2B: NO for claims 1-9)
Independent claim 10 recites “A non-transitory storage medium with instructions stored thereon which, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to: [perform operations directly parallel to the steps of method claim 19].” Hence, the operations of claim 10 require only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional functions and technology, as set forth above with respect to claim 19, and based on the same judicial precedents applied to claim 19, also as set forth above, and also on the disclosures of Biehl et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0259823) and Huttunen et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0087972), as set forth above with regard to claim 19. Further, Avidan et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0193592) discloses (paragraph 25, emphasis added), “Although not illustrated, it should be appreciated that the ecommerce server 110, the merchant computer 120, and the customer computer 130 each include conventional components, such as a processor and a memory medium storing computer-readable instructions that are executable by the processor to perform various operations including those described herein. The computer-readable instructions can be stored on non-transitory computer-readable storage media of a conventional type, whether devices or materials.” Hence, the recited non-transitory storage medium with instructions stored thereon, and the associated processor, require merely well-understood, routine, and conventional technology.
Claim 11, which depends from claim 10, recites that the instructions further cause the processor to provide a review of the selected plan of service to the selected individual service provider, wherein the review includes user feedback of the selected individual service provider for the selected plan of service. The review need not be technological, and the action of providing can be performed by (for example) receiving or transmitting data over a network, which, as set forth above with regard to claims 19 and 10, requires only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional functions and technology. Hence, the limitations of claim 11, whether considered separately or in combination with each other and with the limitations of claim 10, do not raise the claimed invention to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 12, which depends from claim 10, recites that the instructions further cause the processor to receive a summary of the selected plan of service from the selected individual service provider after the selected plan of service has been performed at the mobile computing device. Such receiving a summary can be performed by (for example) receiving or transmitting data over a network, which, as set forth above with regard to claim 19 and claim 10, requires only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional functions and technology. Claim 13, which depends from claim 12, recites that the instructions further cause the processor to transmit the summary of the selected plan of service to a server, wherein the summary of the selected plan of service can be accessed by the user and the selected individual service provider. The transmitting can be performed by (for example) receiving or transmitting data over a network, which, as set forth above with regard to claim 19 and claim 10, requires only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional functions and technology. Carricarte et al. (U.S. Patent 10,795,864) discloses (column 1, lines 20-24, emphasis added), “Client terminals having software applications that access data stored on remote servers are well-known. The client terminals access the Internet or other remote networks to obtain web-based application data that is stored on remote servers.” Hence, accessing the selected plan of service by the user and the selected individual service provider requires only well-understood, routine, and conventional technology. Huttunen et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0087972) again establishes communication links as having been well-understood, routine, and conventional (paragraph 37) prior to inventors’ earliest priority date. The limitations of claim 12 and 13, whether considered separately or in combination with each other and with the limitations of claim 10, do not raise the claimed invention to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 14, which depends from claim 10, recites that the instructions further cause the processor to allow the user to change the selected plan of service before the selected plan of service is performed. Such changing need not be in itself technological. Hence, the limitation of claim 14, whether considered separately or in combination with the limitations of claim 10, does not raise the claimed invention to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 15, which depends from claim 10, recites that the instructions further cause the processor to allow the user to create a user personal profile comprising one or more types of haircut. Creating such a user personal profile need not be in itself technological. Hence, the limitation of claim 15, whether considered separately or in combination with the limitations of claim 10, does not raise the claimed invention to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 16, which depends from claim 10, recites that the instructions further cause the processor to allow the user to provide feedback related to the selected plan of service performed, and the feedback is provided to the selected individual service provider. The operations of providing can be performed by (for example) receiving or transmitting data over a network, which, as set forth above with regard to claim 19 and claim 10, requires only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional functions and technology. Claim 17, which depends from claim 16, recites that the mobile computing device is further configured to receive a response to the feedback from the selected individual service provider. The receiving can be performed by (for example) receiving or transmitting data over a network, which, as set forth above with regard to claim 19 and claim 10, requires only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional functions and technology. Claim 18, which depends from claim 17, recites that the mobile computing device is further configured to allow the feedback and the response to be posted on one or more social media platforms. Salameh et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0149321) discloses (paragraph 193, emphasis added), “Comments are then posted automatically by network-based social media platform 202 through predefined processes 592 of network-based social media platform 202 in well known conventional manner.” Salameh further discloses (paragraph 216, emphasis added), “The wanted ad is then posted automatically by network-based social media platform 202 through predefined processes 592 of network-based social media platform 202 in well known conventional manner, including generating well known conventional dialog box (FIG. 12B-3) to enable browsing client device 108 to ‘share’ the wanted ad with networked client device 108c on network-based social media platform 202.” Hence, allowing the feedback and the response to be posted on one or more social media platforms would require only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional technology. The limitations of claims 16, 17, and 18, whether considered separately or in combination with each other and with the limitations of claim 10, do not raise the claimed invention to significantly more than an abstract idea. (Step 2B: NO for claims 10-18)
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 19, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 11,869,049. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the instant application is essentially a briefer version of claim 1 of the ‘049 patent, omitting some limitations, but reciting no new imitations to narrow the claimed system. This may be seen in Table 1 below, in which claim 1 of the ‘049 patent is shown with elements corresponding to the elements of claim 1 of the instant application bolded.
As may be further seen in Table 1: Claim 2 of the instant application then corresponds essentially to the “provide a review” limitation of claim 1 of the ‘049 patent. Claim 3 of the instant application then corresponds essentially to the “receive a summary” limitation of claim 1 of the ‘049 patent. Claim 4 of the instant application then corresponds essentially to the “transmit the summary” limitation of claim 1 of the ‘049 patent. Claim 5 of the instant application then corresponds essentially to claim 2 of the ‘049 patent. Claim 6 of the instant application then corresponds essentially to claim 3 of the ‘049 patent. Claim 7 of the instant application then corresponds to most of claim 4 of the ‘049 patent, without the final clause of claim 4 of the ‘049 patent. Claim 8 of the instant application, which recites that the mobile device is further configured to receive a response to the feedback from the selected individual service provider, is implied by the final clause of claim 4 of the ‘049 patent, “the selected individual service provider is allowed to provide a response to the feedback”, as allowing the selected individual service provider to provide a response would have little purpose if the response were not received. Claim 9 of the instant application then corresponds essentially to claim 5 of the ‘049 patent.
Then claim 19 of the instant application is a method claim essentially parallel to claim 1 of the instant application, and therefore likewise a briefer version of claim 1 of the ‘049 patent, omitting some limitations, but reciting no new imitations to narrow the claimed system. Claim 20 of the instant application, which depends from claim 19, is essentially parallel to claim 2 of the instant application, and therefore to the “provide a review” limitation of claim 1 of the ‘049 patent.
Table 1
Claims of the instant application
Claims of U.S. Patent 11,869,049
1. A system comprising:
a mobile computing device configured to:
receive, at the mobile computing device, user input data associated with a user, the user input data including at least one selected requirement;
receive, at the mobile computing device, third-party data from individual service providers;
create a list of available individual service providers based on the at least one requirement of the user input data and the third-party data;
receive user input indicating a selected plan of service and a selected individual service provider from the list of individual service providers; and
transmit, via a communications link, the selected plan of service to the selected individual service provider.
2. The system of claim 1, wherein the mobile computing device is further configured to provide a review of the selected plan of service to the selected individual service provider, wherein the review includes user feedback of the selected individual service provider for the selected plan of service.
3. The system of claim 1, wherein the mobile computing device is further configured to receive a summary of the selected plan of service from the selected individual service provider after the selected service plan has been performed at the mobile computing device.
4. The system of claim 3, wherein the mobile computing device is further configured to transmit the summary of the selected plan of service, via the communication link, to a server, wherein the summary of the selected service plan can be accessed by the user and the selected individual service provider.
5. The system of claim 1, wherein the mobile computing device is further configured to allow the user to change the selected plan of service before the selected plan of service is performed.
6. The system of claim 1, wherein the mobile computing device is further configured to allow the user to create a user personal profile comprising one or more types of haircut.
7. The system of claim 1, wherein the mobile computing device is further configured to allow the user to provide feedback related to the selected plan of service performed, and the feedback is provided to the selected individual service provider.
8. The system of claim 7, wherein the mobile computing device is further configured to receive a response to the feedback from the selected individual service provider.
9. The system of claim 8, wherein the mobile computing device is further configured to allow the feedback and the response to be posted on one or more social media platforms.
1. An information capturing and processing system, comprising:
a mobile computing device for hair and beauty service configured to:
receive user input data from a user at the mobile computing device;
receive third-party data from individual service providers at the mobile computing device;
create a list of available individual service providers that meet a set of selected requirements of a user at the mobile computing device, wherein the list of available individual service providers is based at least in part on the user input data and the third-party data;
select a plan of service and an individual service provider by the user at the mobile computing device, wherein the selected plan of service and the selected individual service provider are chosen from the list of available individual service providers;
transmit the selected plan of service to the selected individual service provider via a communication link;
allow the user to execute the selected plan of service by engaging directly with the selected individual service provider;
provide a review of the selected plan of service to the selected individual service provider by the user at the mobile computing device, wherein the user can provide the selected individual service provider with feedback related to the selected plan of service;
receive a summary of the selected plan of service from the selected individual service provider after the selected service plan has been performed at the mobile computing device; and
transmit the summary of the selected plan of service to the server via a communication link, wherein the summary of the selected plan of service can be accessed by the user and the selected individual service provider.
2. The information capturing and processing system of claim 1 wherein the mobile computing device is further configured to allow the user to change the selected plan of service before the selected plan of service is performed.
3. The information capturing and processing system of claim 1 wherein the mobile computing device is further configured to allow the user to create a user personal profile comprising one or more types of haircut.
4. The information capturing and processing system of claim 1 wherein the mobile computing device is further configured to allow the user to provide feedback to the selected plan of service performed, and the feedback is provided to the selected individual service provider, the selected individual service provider is allowed to provide a response to the feedback.
5. The information capturing and processing system of claim 2, wherein the mobile computing device is further configured to allow the user’s feedback and the selected individual service provider’s response to be posted on one or more social media platforms.
Claims 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,869,049. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 10 of the instant application is essentially a briefer version of claim 6 of the ‘049 patent, omitting some limitations, but reciting no new imitations to narrow the claimed system. This may be seen in Table 2 below, in which claim 6 of the ‘049 patent is shown with elements corresponding to the elements of claim 10 of the instant application bolded. Claim 10 of the instant application, as currently amended, recites “when executed by a processor of a computing device” in place of “when executed by a processor” in claim 6 of the ‘049 patent, and then twice recites “receive, at the computing device” in place of “receive”. However, this not a substantive narrowing of the claimed subject matter, since a processor must be, or be part of, a computing device in order to perform its functions as recited.
As may be further seen in Table 2: Claim 11 of the instant application then corresponds essentially to the “provide a review” step of claim 6 of the ‘049 patent. Claim 12 of the instant application then corresponds essentially to the “receive a summary” step of claim 6 of the ‘049 patent. Claim 13 of the instant application then corresponds essentially to the “transmit the summary” limitation of claim 10 of the ‘049 patent. Claim 14 of the instant application then corresponds essentially to claim 7 of the ‘049 patent. Claim 15 of the instant application then corresponds essentially to claim 8 of the ‘049 patent. Claim 16 of the instant application then corresponds to most of claim 9 of the ‘049 patent, without the final clause of claim 9 of the ‘049 patent. Claim 17 of the instant application, which recites that the instructions further cause the processor to receive a response to the feedback from the selected individual service provider, is implied by the final clause of claim 9 of the ‘049 patent, “the selected individual service provider is allowed to provide a response to the feedback”, as allowing the selected individual service provider to provide a response would have little purpose if the response were not received. Claim 18 of the instant application then corresponds essentially to claim 10 of the ‘049 patent.
Table 2
Claims of the instant application
Claims of U.S. Patent 11,869,049
10. A non-transitory storage medium with instructions stored thereon which, when executed by a processor of a computing device, cause the processor to:
receive, at the computing device, user input data associated with a user, the user input data including at least one selected requirement;
receive, at the computing device, third-party data from individual service providers;
create a list of available individual service providers based on the at least one requirement of the user input data and the third-party data;
receive user input indicating a selected a plan of service and a selected individual service provider from the list of individual service providers; and
transmit, via a communication link, the selected plan of service to the selected individual service provider.
11. The non-transitory storage medium of claim 10, wherein the instructions further cause the processor to provide a review of the selected plan of service to the selected individual service provider, wherein the review includes user feedback of the selected individual service provider for the selected plan of service.
12. The non-transitory storage medium of claim 10, wherein the instructions further cause the processor to receive a summary of the selected plan of service from the selected individual service provider after the selected plan of service has been performed at the mobile computing device.
13. The non-transitory storage medium of claim 12, wherein the instructions further cause the processor to transmit the summary of the selected plan of service, via the communication link, to a server, wherein the summary of the selected plan of service can be accessed by the user and the selected individual service provider.
14. The non-transitory storage medium of claim 10, wherein the instructions further cause the processor to allow the user to change the selected plan of service before the selected plan of service is performed.
15. The non-transitory storage medium of claim 10, wherein the instructions further cause the processor to allow the user to create a user personal profile comprising one or more types of haircut.
16. The non-transitory storage medium of claim 12, wherein the instructions further cause the processor to allow the user to provide feedback related to the selected plan of service performed, and the feedback is provided to the selected individual service provider.
17. The non-transitory storage medium of claim 16, wherein the instructions further cause the processor to receive a response to the feedback from the selected individual service provider.
18. The non-transitory storage medium of claim 17, wherein the instructions further cause the processor to allow the feedback and the response to be posted on one or more social media platforms.
6. A non-transitory storage medium with instructions stored thereon which, if executed by a processor, cause the processor to:
receive user input data for hair and beauty services from a user at a mobile computing device;
receive third-party data for hair and beauty services from individual service providers at the mobile computing device;
create a list of available individual service providers that meet a set of selected requirements of a user at the mobile computing device, wherein the list of available individual service providers is based at least in part on the user input data and the third-party data;
select a plan of service and an individual service provider by the user at the mobile computing device, wherein the selected plan of service and the selected individual service provider are chosen from the list of individual service providers;
transmit the selected plan of service to the selected individual service provider via a communication link;
allow the user to execute the selected plan of service by engaging directly with the selected individual service provider;
provide a review of the selected plan of service to the selected individual service provider by the user at the mobile computing device, wherein the user can provide the selected individual service provider with feedback related to the selected plan of service;
receive a summary of the selected plan of service from the selected individual service provider after the selected service plan has been performed at the mobile computing device; and
transmit the summary of the selected plan of service to the server via a communication link, wherein the summary of the selected plan of service can be accessed by the user and the selected individual service provider.
7. The non-transitory storage medium of claim 6, wherein the instructions, if executed by a processor, cause the processor to allow the user to change the selected plan of service before the selected plan of service is performed.
8. The non-transitory storage medium of claim 6, wherein the instructions, if executed by a processor, cause the processor to allow the user to create a user personal profile comprising one or more types of haircut.
9. The non-transitory storage medium of claim 6, wherein the instructions, if executed by a processor, cause the processor to allow the user to provide feedback to the selected plan of service performed, and the feedback is provided to the selected individual service provider; the selected individual service provider is allowed to provide a response to the feedback.
10. The non-transitory storage medium of claim 9, wherein the instructions, if executed by a processor, cause the processor to allow the user’s feedback and the selected individual service provider’s response to be posted on one or more social media platforms.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 5, 10, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alonzo-Reynaud (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0116546) in view of Hoffart et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/267403). As per claim 1, Alonzo-Reynaud discloses a system comprising at least one user device (paragraph 55, emphasis added), “A provider-and-consumer matching system (‘matching system’) 100 includes a host server system 120 in communication via a network 110 with a plurality of user devices 130. A user may be a provider or a consumer.” Alonzo-Reynaud does not use the exact words “mobile computing device”, but does disclose (paragraph 63, emphasis added). “A user device 130 may comprise, for example, an input/output device, a display, a processor, memory, and/or audio equipment such that the user may utilize the user device to create and/or edit documents using the word processor. Exemplary user devices include, but are not limited to, general purpose computers, laptops, cell phones, smart phones, personal digital assistants, televisions, tablets, and the like.” At least some of these inherently and unambiguously qualify as mobile computing devices, so a mobile computing device is disclosed. Alonzo-Reynaud further discloses receiving user data associated with a user, the user data including at least one selected requirement (Figure 4B, boxes 414 and 416) (paragraph 82, emphasis added) “At step 414, a host server system 120 receives from the consumer a location associated with the consumer. At step 416, the host server system 120 receives from the consumer an identification of a personal care service.” The personal care service is by implication something required by the consumer in order to do business. Use of a mobile computing device implies inputting of data by the user/consumer to enable that data to be made available to others, such as one or more service providers, or a central coordinator. Alonzo-Reynaud further discloses at least one selected requirement and inputting (paragraph 94, emphasis added), “FIGS. 16-18 depict an exemplary menu tree for hair cutting services. Of course, consumers may search for many other types of personal care services, such as massages and facial care. The consumer may select service details in various ways, including by checking checkboxes, selecting from dropdown lists, and navigating through a tree structure. Using hair cutting services as an example, if the desired service is a woman’s haircut for straight hair (and assuming the selection method is the option tree depicted in FIGS. 16-18), the consumer would select the following options: ‘women’ (from among ‘women,’ ‘men,’ and ‘children’), then ‘hair’ (from among ‘hair,’ ‘manicure & pedicure,’ ‘makeup,’ and ‘massage’), then ‘wavy’ (from among ‘straight,’ ‘wavy,’ and ‘curly’), and then ‘haircut’ (from among ‘haircut,’ ‘style (round-brush or iron),’ and ‘updo/braid’). Of course, many other selection methods are possible, and many other services could be presented as options.”
Alonzo-Reynaud further discloses receiving third party data from individual service providers (paragraph 92, emphasis added) “Among other things, menu options may include: 1) searching first for providers (and then selecting services offered by the provider), 2) searching first for services (and then selecting a provider from a list of providers who offer those services), 3) reviewing a consumer’s appointment schedule, and 4) editing a consumer’s personal profile.” See also Figure 5A, especially boxes/steps 510, 512, 514, and 516. See also Figures 15-20. Alonzo-Reynaud further discloses in paragraph 94, emphasis added: “If a consumer opts to search for first for services and then select a provider from a list of providers who offer those services, the consumer may proceed to steps 510 through 516. At step 510, the consumer searches for services (see FIG. 15). At step 512, the consumer selects service details (see FIGS. 16, 17, and 18). FIGS. 16-18 depict an exemplary menu tree for hair cutting services. Of course, consumers may search for many other types of personal care services, such as massages and facial care. The consumer may select service details in various ways, including by checking checkboxes, selecting from dropdown lists, and navigating through a tree structure. Using hair cutting services as an example, if the desired service is a woman’s haircut for straight hair (and assuming the selection method is the option tree depicted in FIGS. 16-18), the consumer would select the following options: ‘women’ (from among ‘women,’ ‘men,’ and ‘children’), then ‘hair’ (from among ‘hair,’ ‘manicure & pedicure,’ ‘makeup,’ and ‘massage’), then ‘wavy’ (from among ‘straight,’ ‘wavy,’ and ‘curly’), and then ‘haircut’ (from among ‘haircut,’ ‘style (round-brush or iron),’ and ‘updo/braid’). Of course, many other selection methods are possible, and many other services could be presented as options. At step 514, the consumer may select a provider from a list of providers who offer the selected service (see FIG. 19). At step 516, the consumer may review a profile of the selected provider (see FIG. 20). The consumer then proceeds to step 526.”
Alonzo-Reynaud does not expressly disclose creating a list of available individual service providers based on the at least one requirement of the user input data and the third-party data, but does disclose (paragraph 94, emphasis added), “At step 514, the consumer may select a provider from a list of providers who offer the selected service (see FIG. 19).” Alonzo-Reynaud further discloses (paragraph 130, emphasis added), “After the consumer selects a requested service, the application may display a list of nearby providers who provide the selected service. FIG. 19 illustrates an exemplary provider screen 1900 that allows a user to select a particular provider from a list of relevant providers.” Such a list would inherently have to have been created, making the step of creating the list of available individual service providers at least obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventors’ earliest priority filing.
Alonzo-Reynaud further discloses receiving user input indicating a selected individual service provider and, by implication, the selected plan of service, from the list of available individual service providers (paragraph 94, emphasis added), “At step 514, the consumer may select a provider from a list of providers who offer the selected service (see FIG. 19).” This should be read in light of the preceding language of paragraph 94, set forth above. Yet further, Alonzo-Reynaud discloses (paragraph 130, emphasis added), “After the consumer selects a requested service, the application may display a list of nearby providers who provide the selected service. FIG. 19 illustrates an exemplary provider screen 1900 that allows a user to select a particular provider from a list of relevant providers.”
Alonzo-Reynaud discloses transmitting appointment information to a selected service provider (paragraph 5, emphasis added), “The method also comprises transmitting to the consumer an identification of a personal care service provider who is located within a geographic area associated with the consumer’s location and who offers the personal care service identified by the consumer and receiving from the consumer a request for the personal care service provider to perform the personal care service identified by the consumer. The method further comprises generating an appointment for the consumer and the personal care service provider based on the consumer’s request and transmitting appointment-related information to the consumer and the personal care service provider.” Alonzo-Reynaud further discloses (paragraph 82, emphasis added), “At step 420, the host server system 120 receives from the consumer a request for the personal care service provider to perform the personal care service identified by the consumer. At step 422, the host server system 120 generates an appointment for the consumer and the personal care service provider based on the consumer’s request. At step 424, the host server system 120 transmits appointment-related information to the consumer and to the personal care service provider.” Given the disclosure of transmission, transmitting via a communication link of some sort inherently follows. Alonzo-Reynaud does not disclose transmitting the selected plan of service to the selected individual service provider (although that might be taken as implicit). However, Hoffart teaches transmitting a selected service information to a selected service provider (stylist) (paragraph 103, emphasis added), “In certain embodiments, a user may not only book a time/date to receive a style for a specified look, but also for other services provided by the stylist. . . A note taking feature may also be provided for the user and the stylist to input notes related to any of the information stored in the mobile device such as styles, stylists, booking details, etc. For example, a client may input notes with special requests or a personal message for the stylist in the appointment request, which can be messaged to the stylist.” Hoffart further teaches (paragraph 106, emphasis added), “The stylist may receive an appointment request and confirm booking an appointment. The stylist may also receive the selected hairstyle information selected by the client and may be provided access to the hair recipe and instructional materials necessary to teach the stylist how to create the hairstyle, along with different style ideas.” Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventors’ earliest priority to transmit, via a communication link, the selected plan of service to the selected individual service provider, for such obvious advantages as enabling the service provider to know in advance what service was requested, and thus to know how long providing the service could be expected to take, what materials or equipment would be needed, to arrange to have those materials or equipment ready, to brush up her techniques for providing the selected service, etc., at least in part as per Hoffart.
As per claim 5, Alonzo-Reynaud discloses the mobile computing device being configured to allow the user to change the selected plan of service before the selected plan of service is performed (paragraph 136, emphasis added), “Via a consumer detail screen, a consumer may view additional details about an appointment, and edit or cancel an appointment. FIG. 22 illustrates an exemplary consumer detail screen 2200, which displays a provider photo 2210, an appointment status indicator 2220, an appointment date 2230, an appointment time 2240, an appointment location 2250, an appointment provider 2260, and services to be provided during the appointment 2270. The screen also provides a cancel button 2280 that allows a consumer to cancel an appointment, and an edit button 2290 that opens an appointment screen 1200 (FIG. 12) to allow a consumer to change appointment details, such as the date, time, or services to be rendered.” See also Figures 22 and 12.
As per claim 10, this is a storage medium claim reciting “A non-transitory storage medium with instructions stored thereon which, when executed by a processor of a computing device, cause the processor to: [perform operations parallel to the operations of the mobile computing device of claim 1]”. Therefore, the operations of the body of claim 10 are obvious on the same grounds set forth above with regard to claim 1. Alonzo-Reynaud does not disclose a non-transitory storage medium storing instructions to be executed by a processor, but Hoffart teaches a non-transitory storage medium storing instructions (paragraph 13, emphasis added), “Some example systems and methods include a non-transitory storage medium having computer-executable instructions thereon for a method of booking a style”. Hoffart further teaches a processor or processors of a computing device or devices (paragraph 45, emphasis added), “Such a server system could be any grouping of one or more computers, servers, networked devices with processors, memory, and the capacity to facilitate networks.” Hoffart further teaches computer-readable media, some of them apparently non-transitory, used to carry instructions to a processor for execution (paragraph 132, emphasis added), “Common forms of computer-readable media therefore include for example: disks (e.g., hard, floppy, flexible) or any other magnetic medium, a CD-ROM, DVD or DVD-ROM, any other optical medium, any other physical storage medium, a RAM, a PROM, a EPROM, a FLASH-EPROM, any other memory chip, a carrier wave transporting data or instructions, cables or links transporting such a carrier wave, or nay other medium from which a computer can read programming code and/or data. Many of these forms of computer readable media may be involved in carrying one or more sequences of one or more instructions to a processor for execution.” Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventors’ earliest priority to have such a non-transitory storage medium with instructions stored thereon and such a processor of a computing device, for the obvious advantage of causing a computing device to carry out desired operations.
As per claim 14, this is parallel to claim 5, and obvious on the grounds set forth above with respect to claim 5 above.
As per claim 19, this is a method claim parallel to system claim 1, and therefore obvious on the same grounds set forth above with regard to claim 1.
Claims 2, 7, 8, and 9, claims 11, 16, 17, and 18, and claim 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alonzo-Reynaud and Hoffart as applied to claim 1 above for claims 2, 7, 8, and 9, as applied to claim 10 above for claims 11, 16, 17, and 18, and as applied to claim 19 above for claim 20, and further in view of Olivier et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/0037414). As per claim 2, Alonzo-Reynaud discloses providing a review of a provided service, involving an individual service provider (paragraph 138, emphasis added), “FIG. 23 illustrates an exemplary rating screen 2300 that a consumer may use to rate a provider. The screen displays the provider’s name 2310 and the provider’s phot 2320 and provides an overall star rating element 2330, a work quality rating element 2340, a time punctuality rating element 2350, and a comments text box 2360. . . . A consumer may select a Submit button 2390 in order [to] submit his review.” See also Figure 23, in which, inter alia, an individual service provider is shown and named. What Alonzo-Reynaud discloses may be considered feedback, although the word is not used; the review may be provided to or seen by the individual service provider, although this is not made explicit. However, Olivier expressly teaches feedback, and teaches enabling a provider to respond to postings, from which it follows that the postings/feedback are provided to a service provider or service providers (paragraph 17, emphasis added), “An online feedback forum can be affiliated with the provider of a service and/or product and enables users of the service and/or product to add postings to provide feedback, browse postings, and add comments to postings. The online feedback forum further enables the affiliated provider and/or its agents to add official responses to postings and otherwise manage postings of the online feedback forum. Since postings and responses are viewable by both the users and the provider and its agents, the online feedback forum allows for wider access and greater dissemination of feedback to enable a larger community to share, reflect, and improve the service and/or product based on their collective feedback. In at least one or more embodiments, an online feedback forum can be an online suggestion board, an online chat room, a blog, or the like.” (See also Abstract and paragraph 29.) Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventors’ earliest priority to provide the review to the selected individual service provider, and for the review to include user feedback of the selected individual service provider, for at least the obvious and implied advantage of enabling the selected individual service provider to benefit from feedback, and improve his future performance, particularly his future performance in light of the tastes of a particular customer.
As per claim 7, Alonzo-Reynaud discloses providing a review related to a plan of service performed, involving an individual service provider (paragraph 138, emphasis added), “FIG. 23 illustrates an exemplary rating screen 2300 that a consumer may use to rate a provider. The screen displays the provider’s name 2310 and the provider’s phot 2320 and provides an overall star rating element 2330, a work quality rating element 2340, a time punctuality rating element 2350, and a comments text box 2360. . . . A consumer may select a Submit button 2390 in order [to] submit his review.” See also Figure 23, in which, inter alia, an individual service provider is shown and named. What Alonzo-Reynaud discloses may be considered feedback, although the word is not used; the review may be provided to or seen by the individual service provider, although this is not made explicit. However, Olivier expressly teaches feedback, and teaches enabling a provider to respond to postings, from which it follows that the postings/feedback are provided to a service provider or service providers (paragraph 17, emphasis added), “An online feedback forum can be affiliated with the provider of a service and/or product and enables users of the service and/or product to add postings to provide feedback, browse postings, and add comments to postings. The online feedback forum further enables the affiliated provider and/or its agents to add official responses to postings and otherwise manage postings of the online feedback forum. Since postings and responses are viewable by both the users and the provider and its agents, the online feedback forum allows for wider access and greater dissemination of feedback to enable a larger community to share, reflect, and improve the service and/or product based on their collective feedback. In at least one or more embodiments, an online feedback forum can be an online suggestion board, an online chat room, a blog, or the like.” (See also Abstract and paragraph 29.) Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventors’ earliest priority to provide the review to the selected individual service provider, and for the review to include feedback related to the selected plan of service performed, for at least the obvious and implied advantage of enabling the selected individual service provider to benefit from feedback, and improve his future performance, particularly his future performance in light of the tastes of a particular customer.
As per claim 8, Olivier teaches responses to feedback from a selected service provider, including an individual service provider, viewable by users (paragraph 17, emphasis added), “The online feedback forum further enables the affiliated provider and/or its agents to add official responses to postings and otherwise manage postings of the online feedback forum. Since postings and responses are viewable by both the users and the provider and its agents, the online feedback forum allows for wider access and greater dissemination of feedback to enable a larger community to share, reflect, and improve the service and/or product based on their collective feedback.” Since postings and responses are viewable by users, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventors’ earliest priority for the mobile computing device to be further configured to receive a response to the feedback from the selected individual service provider, for at least the obvious advantage of facilitating the viewing of postings responses by the user, in accordance with the teaching of Olivier.
As per claim 9, Olivier teaches feedback and response being posted, and teaches an online feedback forum that qualifies as a social media platform (paragraph 17, emphasis added), “An online feedback forum can be affiliated with the provider of a service and/or product and enables users of the service and/or product to add postings to provide feedback, browse postings, and add comments to postings. The online feedback forum further enables the affiliated provider and/or its agents to add official responses to postings and otherwise manage postings of the online feedback forum. Since postings and responses are viewable by both the users and the provider and its agents, the online feedback forum allows for wider access and greater dissemination of feedback to enable a larger community to share, reflect, and improve the service and/or product based on their collective feedback. In at least one or more embodiments, an online feedback forum can be an online suggestion board, an online chat room, a blog, or the like.” Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventors’ earliest priority for the mobile computing device to be further configured to allow the feedback and the response to be posted on one or more social media platforms, for such obvious advantages as enabling interested parties other than the original user to see how feedback is addressed, and giving service providers an incentive to respond to complaints in an appropriate manner, so as to make a good impression on potential customers.
As per claim 11, this is parallel to claim 2, and rejected on essentially the same grounds set forth above with regard to claim 2.
As per claim 16, this is parallel to claim 7, and rejected on essentially the same grounds set forth above with regard to claim 7.
As per claim 17, this is parallel to claim 8, and rejected on essentially the same grounds set forth above with regard to claim 8.
As per claim 18, this is parallel to claim 9, and rejected on essentially the same grounds set forth above with regard to claim 9.
As per claim 20, this is parallel to claim 2, and rejected on essentially the same grounds set forth above with regard to claim 2.
Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alonzo-Reynaud and Hoffart as applied to claim 1 above (for claim 3), and as applied to claim 10 above (for claim 12), and further in view of Michonski (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0078577). As per claim 3, Michonski teaches receiving a summary of a service form a service provider or providers after at least some of plan of services has been performed (paragraph 19, emphasis added), “For additional modest monthly upgrade fees ($10-$20 per month/per service) the system may (1) send the consumer on behalf of the service providers a weekly summary update letter of all actions taken by the service provider to perform the service as well as (2) a monthly update letter which will have some customization for the service provider, and (3) list the service provider’s grade together with their name, contact information, link to website and final grade in the inventive system’s searchable database, allowing other consumers to easily find that service provider.” Paragraph 19 is read in light of paragraph 18, which recites (emphasis added), “(c) have the system tell the consumer when the actions are completed by the service provider,” therefore indicating actions by the service provider as having been completed. Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventors’ earliest priority for the mobile computing device to be further configured to receive a summary of the selected plan of service from the selected individual service provider after the selected plan of service has been performed at the mobile computing device, for such obvious advantages as providing a user with records of services performed, e.g., for comparison of bills or credit card charges with the services performed, or keeping track of which services have been performed when a plan of service involves a series of services.
Likewise, as per claim 12, this is parallel to claim 3, and rejected on essentially the same grounds set forth above with regard to claim 3.
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alonzo-Reynaud, Hoffart, and Michonski, as applied to claim 3 above (for claim 4) and as applied to claim 12 above (for claim 13), and further in view of Gordon et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0211282). As per claim 4, Gordon teaches an instance of devices transmitting information to a server, wherein that information can be accessed by a particular device and the user thereof (paragraph 220, emphasis added), “Further, in one embodiment, the other devices may send information to a networked server, such that the mobile device associated with the user may access the data (or a summary, etc.).” Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventors’ earliest priority for the mobile computing device to be further configured to transmit the summary of the selected plan of service, via the communications link, to a server, wherein the summary of the selected plan of service could be accessed by the user and the selected individual service provider, for at least the obvious advantages of making the summary of the selected plan of service readily available to one or more persons with readily available devices for going online and reason to view or consult the summary of the selected plan of service, and storing the summary of the selected plan of service at a neutral location where a particular user or service provider could not readily alter it.
Likewise, as per claim 13, this is parallel to claim 4, and rejected on essentially the same grounds set forth above with regard to claim 4.
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alonzo-Reynaud and Hoffart as applied to claim 1 above (for claim 6), and as applied to claim 10 above (for claim 15), and further in view of Krenik (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0217465). As per claim 6, Alonzo-Reynaud does not disclose that the mobile computing device is configured to allow the user to create a user personal profile comprising one or more types of haircut, but Krenik teaches allowing a user to create a user personal profile which can comprise one or more types of haircut (paragraph 48, emphasis added), “Start application step 301 may greet user 102 and may ask user 102 to set up a profile (if they are a first time user), to verify who they are (if they are a repeat user), or may allow user 102 an option to use automated hair cutting system 100 without providing information on themselves. A profile of user 102 may include information on their age, head size, head and scalp model, scalp maps of hair length, scalp maps of hair thickness, hair type, hair color, hair style preferences, date of their past haircuts and the style their hair was cut to, their address and contact information, security keys, passwords, and other possible information about them.” Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventors’ earliest priority for the mobile computing device to be configured to allow the user to create a user personal profile comprising one or more types of haircut, for at least the obvious advantages of aiding a service provider in cutting the user’s hair (with or without the use of an automated hair cutting system, as in Krenik) in a way or the way preferred by the user.
Likewise, as per claim 15, this is parallel to claim 6, and rejected on essentially the same grounds set forth above with regard to claim 6.
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alonzo-Reynaud, Hoffart, and Olivier, as applied to claim 8 above (for claim 9) and as applied to claim 17 above (for claim 18), and further in view of Siva (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0239614). Claims 9 and 18 are rejected based on Alonzo-Reynaud, Hoffart, and Olivier, as set forth above, and Examiner believes those rejections to be valid. However, to anticipate a possible argument, based on Olivier not using the specific words “social media”, Siva is further applied. Siva teaches a user providing feedback regarding a service provider (paragraph 26, emphasis added), “After the visit, the patient may receive a prompt (in the form of an email, text message, etc.) automatically generated by the system and method to provide feedback on the service provider, as shown in block 51. The patient’s textual and/or verbal feedback and comments (can also be in the form of responses to survey questions, a thumbs up/down, or star-based rating) are received by the system and stored in its database with an association with the particular service provider.” Siva then expressly teaches posting of feedback on one or more social media platforms (paragraph 34, emphasis added), “The patient’s feedback and/or recommendation can be posted to one or more social media sites, with the patient’s and the service providers advanced permission. Negative feedback is provided to the service provider so that the service provider may take steps to engage with the patient, and remedy the negative experience.” Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventors’ earliest priority for the mobile computing device (as per claim 9) to be further configured to allow the feedback and the response to be posted on one or more social media platforms, for such obvious advantages as enabling interested parties other than the original user to see how feedback is addressed, and giving service providers an incentive to respond to complaints in an appropriate manner, so as to make a good impression on potential customers. As per claim 18, it would likewise have been obvious for the instructions to further cause the processor to allow the feedback and the response to be posted on one or more social media platforms, with the same motivations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 10, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. First, Applicant has corrected some minor informalities, but one set of such informalities (one in each of the independent claims) remains. Secondly, Applicant refers to the “provisional double patenting rejection.” Examiner replies that the double patenting rejections made in the previous Office Action, and in the present Office Action, are based on an actual patent, not a co-pending application, and are therefore not provisional. It is, however, acceptable to Examiner that a Terminal Disclaimer not be filed until and unless other grounds for rejection are overcome.
Regarding 35 U.S. 101, Applicant then argues that the claims at most merely involve an exception, and can only be alleged to recite an abstract idea when considered at too high a level of abstraction. Examiner replies that the claims are directed to arranging a transaction for between a user and a service provider, and therefore directed to an abstract idea (in the category of commercial interactions) in a non-trivial way. Furthermore, as set forth above in the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections (which Examiner has rewritten to accord with the Patent Office’s current preferred format and style), the current claims do not recite any of the specific limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application, and do not otherwise apply or use the judicial exception in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Examiner further maintains that, contrary to Applicant’s position, the claims do not recite specific improvements to a method or system for connecting users with selected providers for a selected service, at least not in a technological sense.
Applicant then argues (page 11 of the Amendments and Remarks) that the claimed elements, at least in combination integrate the alleged exception into a practical application because the additional elements reflect “an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to another technology or technical field.” Examiner replies that, as set forth in the Alice/Mayo analysis above, particularly with reference to Step 2B, the claims are shown to involve only well-understood, routine, and conventional functions and technology, based on judicial precedents and prior art references applied. Therefore, Examiner maintains that there is no improvement in the functioning of a computer, or improvement to another technology or technical field. Instead, well-understood, routine, and conventional functions and technology are applied to implement particular commercial interactions.
Finally, although the claims were previously stated to recite non-obvious subject matter, all of the current claims are rejected in view of prior art (35 U.S.C. 103). Therefore, the present Office Action is a new non-final rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Krenik (U.S. Patent 10,259,131) is the patent issued on the application published as U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0217465, and used in rejecting two of the pending dependent claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS D ROSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6762. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM-5:30 PM, M-F. Non-official/draft communications may be faxed to the examiner at 571-273-6762, or emailed to Nichola.Rosen@uspto.gov (in the body of an email, please, not as an attachment).
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, Marissa Thein, can be reached at 571-272-6764. 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.
/NICHOLAS D ROSEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689 January 15, 2026