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 .
Claim Status
The claims filed 12/8/2025 are entered.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim 1 is independent.
Claims 1, 4-5, 8-9, and 12-20 are currently amended.
Claims 2-3, 6-7, and 10-11 are original.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/8/2025 have been considered but they are not fully persuasive.
Claim Objections
The prior objections to claims 4, 8-9, and 16-20 are withdrawn in view of the current amendments.
Claims 12-15 remain objected to as described herein.
Claim 1 is objected to new grounds as presented herein.
35 U.S.C. 102 & 35 U.S.C. 103
The prior rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been withdrawn in view of the current amendments.
35 U.S.C. 101
Applicant’s arguments with regards to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more have been considered but are not persuasive.
With regards to Step 2A Prong 1 of the subject matter eligibility framework, Applicant argues that the amended claims do not recite recitations of business rules alone, but also recite how the computing device structures and controls data, access, and transaction flow in a manner that is particular to computer networks and online platforms, rather than to human processes.
The argument is not persuasive. The additional limitations drawn to the additional computing device are given due consideration under Step 2A Prong 2. With regards to Prong 1, the claims still recite commercial or legal interactions, as they set forth or describe the marketing of employment (“marketing or sales activities or behaviors”) and the business relations between employers and employees (“business relations”). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as commercial or legal interactions, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
With regards to Step 2A Prong 2 of the subject matter eligibility framework, Applicant argues that the amended claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Applicant, pointing to para. 0018-0020, 0051-0057, 0061-0063 and the wallet/escrow description in the specification for support, argues that the additional elements address problems that arise specifically online, geographically distributed gig platforms, such as fraud risk, lack of mutual trust, and the absence of portable, verifiable histories when the users change locations. Applicant argues that this is not application of generic computers, but is use of particular verification-driven access control, stateful escrow management, and reputation-driven matching to alter the way the platform’s computing infrastructure stores, exposes, and releases user and payment data.
The argument is not persuasive. The multi-level verification, escrow-based payment subsystem, and reputation-driven matching fall under the abstract idea itself. These elements are implemented using generic computing components performing functions such as storing data, applying rules, and displaying results. These improvements relate to business practices rather than any technological improvement to computer functionality or network operations. An improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology.
With regards to Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility framework, Applicant argues that the claims recite additional elements that constitute an “inventive concept” beyond the abstract idea. More specifically, Applicant argues that the ordered combination of features – including the server enforced multi-step verification protocol, the use of verification level and reputation metrics as inputs to the matching score, the restriction of map visualizations and job access based on verification level, and the state-machine-controlled escrow release is not conventional or routine in generic job boards; and that the Office Action has not cited, and Applicant is not aware of, any prior art that discloses or suggests this particular combination of features which meaningfully limits the scope of the claims.
The argument is not persuasive. The absence of prior art does not, by itself, establish an inventive concept for eligibility purposes, as the Step 2B inquiry is distinct from novelty and non-obviousness. Even a new abstract idea remains ineligible when implemented using generic computer components performing routine functions. Here, the argued “inventive concept” is based on an arrangement of abstract business rules implemented using generic computer components performing their ordinary functions. As described above, this is an improvement to the abstract idea itself at best. Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim recites “store, for each user profile:”, which is understood as “store, for each user, a profile comprising:”.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim recites “The system of claim 1, further comprises multi-level verification steps configured to raise their verification level, thereby increasing the safety, stimulating mutual trust between users while keeping the flexibility for users to opt the level of verification they want to be in, and therefore higher level of verification can lead to higher chance of landing a good job or finding the proper employee/tasker. wherein the computing device is configured to perform multi-level verification steps configured to raise their verification level, thereby increasing the safety.”, which is understood as “The system of claim 1, wherein the computing device is configured to perform multi-level verification steps configured to raise their verification level, thereby increasing the safety, stimulating mutual trust between users while keeping the flexibility for users to opt the level of verification they want to be in, and therefore higher level of verification can lead to higher chance of landing a good job or finding the proper employee/tasker.”
Claims 13 and 14 objected to because of the following informalities: The claim recites “The system of claim 1, further comprises…”, which is understood as “The system of claim 1, further
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim recites “The system of claim 1, further comprises a wallet and payment system configured to track pending and completed transactions, balance, and view all funds that are ready to be released once both the employer and employee have deemed the job completed[[.,]]wherein the computing device is configured to provide a wallet and payment system configured to track pending and completed transactions.”, which is understood as “wherein the computing device is configured to provide a wallet and payment system configured to track pending and completed transactions, balance, and view all funds that are ready to be released once both the employer and employee have deemed the job completed[[.,]].”
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim recites “The system of claim 1, further comprises. wherein the computing device is configured to maintain an escrow account configured to protect both employers and employees from malicious acts.”, which is understood as “The system of claim 1, wherein the computing device is configured to maintain an escrow account configured to protect both employers and employees from malicious acts.”
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims are analyzed under the Alice/Mayo framework, as described in MPEP 2106.
Step 1
Claims 1-20 are directed to a system, and thus fall within the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A - Prong 1
The Examiner has identified independent system claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis. Claim 1 recites the limitations of:
1. (currently amended) A computer-implemented system for providing a customizable jobs and services platform, comprising:
a computing device having at least one processor and a memory unit coupled to the at least one processor, the memory unit storing executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, configure the computing device to provide the customizable jobs and services platform using:
a multi-level verification protocol enforced by the computing device
and an automated escrow-based payment subsystem controlled by the computing device
one or more databases in communication with the computing device via a communication network and configured to store, for each user profile:
identification data;
a verification level indicating completion of a defined sequence of verification steps; and
completed transaction records and reputation metrics that are portable between geographic locations; and
a user device associated with each user in communication with the computing device via the communication network and configured to access one or more services provided by the platform;
wherein the executable instructions further configure the computing device to:
(a) execute the multi-level verification protocol by:
presenting, via the user device, successive verification steps including at least: email verification, phone number verification, social media account verification, government identity document verification, address verification based on a recent billing or banking document, payment instrument verification, and interview or background-check verification;
updating the verification level stored for the user profile only upon successful completion of each verification step;
and
restricting, based on the verification level, access by the user device to at least one of:(i) viewing certain job postings,(ii) submitting bids for certain job postings, and(iii) receiving job offers from other users
(b) match, for each posting stored in the one or more databases, candidate user profiles by computing a matching score that is a function of at least: user preferences, proximity between a location of the job posting and a current location associated with the candidate user profile, the verification level of the candidate user profile, and reputation metrics from the completed transaction records;
(c) generate, for display on an interactive map user interface on the user device, a visualization of: geographic locations of job postings, and geographic locations of candidate user profiles that satisfy a minimum verification level condition
and(d) manage payments for an accepted job posting by: receiving, from an employer user device, a payment authorization for a job amount;
placing the job amount into an escrow account controlled by the automated escrow-based payment subsystem;
maintaining, in the one or more databases, a contract state for the accepted job posting, the contract state comprising at least: PENDING, IN-PROGRESS, COMPLETED, and DISPUTED;
transitioning the contract state from PENDING to IN-PROGRESS responsive to confirmation from both an employer user device and an employee user device that work has begun;
transitioning the contract state from IN-PROGRESS to COMPLETED responsive to mutual confirmation from the employer user device and the employee user device that the job has been completed; and
releasing, by the automated escrow-based payment subsystem, at least a portion of the job amount from the escrow account to the employee user device only when the contract state is COMPLETED, or following execution of a dispute resolution procedure when the contract state is DISPUTED,
wherein the platform allows employers and employees to come together to perform or request services or tasks without a middle-man, while enforcing the multi-level verification protocol and automated escrow-based payment subsystem through the computing device.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. The claim limitations delineated in bold above recite commercial or legal interactions, as they set forth or describe the marketing of employment (“marketing or sales activities or behaviors”) and the business relations between employers and employees (“business relations”). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as commercial or legal interactions, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The computing device, database, user device, and communication network in claim 1 is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea)
Step 2A - Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites the additional elements of:
computing device (having processor and memory; performing verification of users and escrow functions); one or more databases (in communication with the computing device); user device
The computer hardware/software is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Thus, claim 1 is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2-20 further define the abstract idea that is present in independent claim 1 and thus correspond to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above.
The dependent claims further recite the additional elements of:
Claim 2: application software or mobile application or web-based application or desktop application
The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. As discussed with regards to Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B, the additional element of the generic use of hardware/software amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Thus, claims 1-20 are not patent-eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Elenbaas (US 2009/0204471 A1) discloses an online work management system that provides a marketplace for multiple job owner and workers. The job owners provide a job description that defines task. The job description may be processed to generate task descriptions that may be published for workers' application. The task descriptions specify the qualification or restrictions for workers to have the task assigned. The online work management system also provides various functions supporting coordination and management of task assignment such as determining the trust level of the user's identity, search the tasks or workers, monitoring the progress of job, managing payment to workers, training and testing the workers, evaluating the review by the job owners, and generation of surveys.
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 ERIC T WONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3405. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm M-F.
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, Michael W Anderson can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/ERIC T WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
ERIC WONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3693