DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2 March 2026 has been entered.
This action is in reply to the entered RCE.
Claims 1 and 10 have been amended.
Claims 1-17 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments are insufficient to overcome the 101 rejections previously raised. These rejections are respectfully maintained and updated below as necessitated by the amendments to the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 2 March 2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding the 101, applicant argues that the amended claims now recite collecting GPS data which is not a mathematical operation or capable of being performed in the human mind. Examiner notes that this argument is moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendments to the claims. The newly amended collecting limitation is treated in the current rejection as an additional element that demonstrates insignificant extra solution activity, i.e. data gathering. When reconsidered it is considered well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the field. The claims do not specific what specific additional elements perform the collecting nor do they demonstrate any specific non-conventional arrangement of conventional elements that is essential to perform a particularly continuous or ongoing data monitoring or collection process. Merely collecting GPS data by the system is not sufficient to transform the claims into a patent eligible invention. The 101 rejection is respectfully maintained and updated below as necessitated by the amendments to the claims. See updated grounds of rejection set forth below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities: grammatical/typographical errors. The claims recite a system and method of “normalizing feedback for an a home care service provider” and “for an a service provider”. 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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent Claims 1 and 10 recite limitations for matching a service provider to a recipient, correlating the ratings, filtering providers, computing a degree of difference, comparing the degree of different against a threshold, selecting a subset, calculating a compatibility score, combining GPS data and the compatibility score into a suitability index, selecting a provider by comparing the suitability index to a threshold, optimizing routing of the home care provider by leveraging the GPS data, mapping data and transportation preferences, collecting feedback, normalizing feedback by modifying the score, generating a decay factor, discounting the modified score and combining the score with an average, adjusting services based on the feedback by generating tasks to alter care and querying correlations in the profile and rematching the recipient with a different provider by recalculating the compatibility score. These limitations, as drafted, illustrate a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind, illustrates mathematical concepts and illustrates certain methods of organizing human activities. But for the “by the server” language, the claims encompass a user making a series of observations and evaluations (e.g. correlating the ratings to profile information, filtering, comparing, combining data and scores into an index, comparing the index to a threshold to make a selection, collecting feedback, rematching) in their mind or with pen and paper. Computing a degree of difference, calculating a compatibility score, normalizing feedback and recalculating the compatibility score all illustrate evaluation functions that are specifically related to mathematical concepts, relationships, formulas or equations that are merely applied “by the server” or in the generically recited computerized environment. The matching/rematching concept as a whole and the limitation for adjusting services based on the mathematical results including generating tasks and querying correlations and rematching by recalculating a score illustrate a certain method of organizing human activity since it demonstrates rules or instructions for adjusting a personal behavior such as feeding, companionship, grooming and personal assistance and is merely linked to the generic computerized environment. The mere nominal recitation of a generic server or computerized environment does not take the claim limitations out of the abstract grouping. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite additional elements including accessing a database by a server, querying the profile, presenting tasks on a unified digital interface, collecting GPS data and that a generic server performs the other claim steps in the computerized environment. The accessing a database by a server for information, collecting GPS data and querying correlations in a profile illustrate generic functions and are recited a high level of generality amounting to mere data gathering which is a form of insignificant extra solution activity. Presenting tasks on a unified digital interface is also a form of insignificant extra solution activity since it is mere data transmission or outputting. The server that performs the other steps is also recited at a high level of generality and merely automate those steps. Each of the additional components is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception in a generic computer environment with generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to step 2A Prong 2, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component or linking the steps to a generic computer environment. The same analysis applies here in 2B and does not provide an inventive concept.
For the accessing, collecting, querying and presenting steps that were considered extra solution activity in step 2A above, these have been re-evaluated in step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that the server is anything other than a generic, off the shelf computer component, and the Symantec, TLI and OIP Techs. court decisions in MPEP 2106.05 indicate that the mere collection, receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner, as it is here.
Dependent claims 2-9 and 11-17 include all of the limitations of claim 1 and 10 and therefore recite the same abstract idea. The claims merely narrow the recited abstract idea by describing services, profile data, additional calculations, updating matches, generating a compatibility score, and filtering. The additional elements recited fail to transform the claims into a patent eligible invention but instead describe a high level interface that displays, collects, presents and receives data/inputs which are all considered insignificant extra solution activity and when reconsidered do not amount to significantly more for the same reasons and rationale set forth for the accessing steps above. Neither the interface nor the servers integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do they amount to significantly more.
Accordingly, claims 1-17 are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE Z DELICH whose telephone number is (571)270-1288. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 7-3:30.
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, Rutao Wu can be reached on 571-272-6045. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEPHANIE Z DELICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623