DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Non-Final, First Office Action on the Merits in response to communications filed January 8, 2026. Claim 1 is amended. Currently, claims 1–21 are pending, of which claim 21 is withdrawn.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1, claims 1–20 in the reply filed on January 8, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “the request” in line 6. However, claim 1 previously recites “a service request” in line 5. Examiner further notes that dependent claim 3 subsequently recites “the service request”. In view of the above, Examiner recommends amending claim 1 to recite “the service request” in line 6 in order to avoid issues of clarity under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 1 further recites “the selected service provider” in line 8 and “the service provider” in lines 9–10, 10, 12, and 13. In view of the above, Examiner recommends amending claim 1 to recite “the
Claim 4 recites “a service request” in line 4 and “the request” in line 5. Examiner notes that dependent claims 5–6 subsequently recite “the service request”. In view of the above, Examiner recommends amending claim 4 to recite “the service request” in line 5 in order to avoid issues of clarity under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 4 further recites “the selected service provider” in line 6 and “the service provider” in lines 7–8 and 9. In view of the above, Examiner recommends amending claim 4 to recite “the
Claim 13 recites “the request” in the element for “employing”. However, claim 13 previously recites “a service request” in the element for “receiving”. Examiner further notes that dependent claim 17 recites “the service request”. In view of the above, Examiner recommends amending claim 13 to recite “the service request” in the element for “employing” in order to avoid issues of clarity under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 13 further recites “the selected service provider” in the element for “notifying … the selected service provider” and “the service provider” in the elements for “receiving”, “tracking”, “notifying” and “receiving”. In view of the above, Examiner recommends amending claim 1 to recite “the .
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the term “their” in line 4. The term “their” renders the scope of the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether Applicant intends to reference the recited “service providers”, “service requestors”, or both “service providers and service requestors”.
For purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as reciting “store [[their]] onboarding data”.
Claim 1 further recites “the selected service provider” in line 7, “the selection” in line 7, “the start of services” in line 8, and “the geolocation data” in lines 8–9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
For purposes of examination, claim 1 is interpreted as reciting “a service provider” in line 7, “[[the]] a selection” in line 7, “[[the]] a start of services” in line 8, and “[[the]] geolocation data” in lines 8–9.
In view of the above, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 2–3, which depend from claim 1, inherit the deficiencies described above. As a result, claims 2–3 are similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites “the requested service location” in lines 2–3 and “the requested service timeframe” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
For purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as reciting “[[the]] a requested service location” in lines 2–3 and “[[the]] a requested service timeframe” in line 3.
Claim 3 recites “the status” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For purposes of examination, claim 3 is interpreted as reciting “[[the]] a status” in line 2.
Claim 4 recites “the selected service provider” in line 6, “the selection” in line 6, “the start of services” in line 7, “the geolocation data” in line 7, and “the start acceptance” in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
For purposes of examination, claim 4 is interpreted as reciting “a service provider” in line 6, “[[the]] a selection” in line 6, “[[the]] a start of services” in line 7, “[[the]] geolocation data” in line 7, and “[[the]] a start acceptance” in line 8.
In view of the above, claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 5–12, which depend from claim 4, inherit the deficiencies described above. As a result, claims 5–12 are similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites “the service providers” in lines 3, 3, and 4. Although claims 4–5 previously recite “the subset of service providers”, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the service providers” in the claim.
For purposes of examination, claim 5 is interpreted as reciting “the subset of service providers” in lines 3, 3, and 4.
Claim 5 further recites “the requested service location” and “the requested service timeframe” in lines 3 and 4, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
For purposes of examination, claim 5 is interpreted as reciting “[[the]] a requested service location” and “[[the]] a requested service timeframe” in lines 3 and 4, respectively.
Claim 6 recites “the status” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For purposes of examination, claim 6 is interpreted as reciting “[[the]] a status” in line 2.
Claim 7 recites “the workload” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For purposes of examination, claim 7 is interpreted as reciting “[[the]] a workload” in line 3.
Claim 9 recites “the size” and “the network” in lines 2 and 3, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
For purposes of examination, claim 9 is interpreted as reciting “[[the]] a size” and “[[the]] a network” in lines 2 and 3, respectively.
Claim 10 recites “the computing device”, “the number”, and “the server” in lines 2–3, 3, and 3, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
For purposes of examination, claim 10 is interpreted as reciting “[[the]] a computing device”, “[[the]] a number”, and “[[the]] a server” in lines 2–3, 3, and 3, respectively.
Claim 11 recites the term “service requester” in line 2. However, claim 4, from which claim 11 depends, previously recites “a service requester”. As a result, the scope of claim 11 is indefinite because it is unclear whether Applicant intends for the recitation of claim 11 to reference the previous recitation or intends to introduce a second, different “service requester”.
For purposes of examination, claim 11 is interpreted as reciting “the service requester” in line 2.
Claim 13 recites “the matched service provider data” in the element for “compressing”; “the selected service provider”, “the selection”, and “the start of services” in the element for “notifying … the selected service provider”; and “the geolocation data” in the element for “tracking”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
For purposes of examination, claim 13 is interpreted as reciting “[[the]] matched service provider data” in the element for “compressing”; “a service provider”, “[[the]] a selection”, and “[[the]] a start of services” in the element for “notifying … the selected service provider”; and “[[the]] geolocation data” in the element for “tracking”.
In view of the above, claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 14–20, which depend from claim 13, inherit the deficiencies described above. As a result, claims 14–20 are similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 14 recites “service providers” and “service requesters” in lines 1–3. However, claim 13, from which claim 14 depends, previously recites “service providers” and “service requesters”. As a result, the scope of claim 14 is indefinite because it is unclear whether Applicant intends for the recitations of claim 14 to reference the previous recitations or intends to introduce a second, different “service provider” or “service requester”.
For purposes of examination, claim 14 is interpreted as reciting “wherein the onboarding of the service providers and the service requesters includes collecting information about the service providers and the service requesters”.
Claim 14 further recites the term “their” in line 3. The term “their” renders the scope of the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether Applicant intends to reference the recited “service providers”, “service requestors”, or both “service providers and service requestors”.
Finally, claim 14 includes the phrase “such as” and lists a string of possible information. Examiner submits that the phrase “such as” renders the scope of the claim indefinite because it is unclear what information Applicant intends to collect.
For purposes of examination, claim 14 is interpreted as reciting “collecting information about the service providers and the service requesters
Claim 16 recites “the availability data”, “the service providers’ availability”, and “the requested service timeframe” in lines 1, 2, and 2–3, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
For purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as reciting “[[the]] availability data”, “[[the]] service providers[[’]] availability”, and “[[the]] a requested service timeframe” in lines 1, 2, and 2–3, respectively.
Claim 17 recites “a subset of service providers” in line 2. However, claim 13, from which claim 17 depends, previously recites “a subset of service providers”. As a result, the scope of claim 17 is indefinite because it is unclear whether Applicant intends for the recitation of claim 17 to reference the previous recitation or intends to introduce a second, different “subset of service providers”.
Claim 17 further recites “the matching” in line 1, “the requested service location” in line 3, and “the requested service timeframe” in lines 3–4. Although claim 13 previously recites an element “to match”, there is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
For purposes of examination, claim 17 is interpreted as reciting “wherein [[the]] matching of the service request to [[a]] the subset of service providers is based on specific criteria including at least one of: proximity of the service providers to [[the]] a requested service location, availability of the service providers during [[the]] a requested service timeframe, credentials of the service providers, and machine learning predictions based on historical data.”
Claim 18 recites “the service provider’s location” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For purposes of examination, claim 18 is interpreted as reciting “[[the]] a service provider[[’s]] location” in line 3.
Claim 19 recites “the real-time tracking” in line 1 and “the system” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
For purposes of examination, and in view of the interpretation of claim 18 above, claim 19 is interpreted as reciting “wherein [[the]] real-time tracking of the service provider[['s]] location enables providing the service requester with an estimated arrival time of the service provider”.
Claim 20 recites “the accuracy” in line 2, “the data compression” in line 3, and “the size” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
For purposes of examination, claim 20 is interpreted as reciting “wherein the machine learning algorithm is configured to learn and adapt over time to improve [[the]] an accuracy of matching service requests with service providers based on the specific criteria, and the step of compressing further comprises employing lossless data compression techniques to reduce [[the]] a size of the matched service provider data”.
In view of the above, Examiner respectfully requests that Applicant thoroughly review the claims for compliance with the requirements set forth under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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 1–12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. A system or apparatus defined merely by software, or terms synonymous with software or files, represents functional descriptive material (e.g. data structures or software) per se. Such material is considered non-statutory when claimed without appropriate corresponding structure. Here, in the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, the applicant’s system elements of: “a computing environment”, “a matching engine”, and “a lifecycle engine,” as recited in independent claims 1 and 4, encompass functions that can be executed entirely as software per se (See e.g., Spec. ¶ 41). As currently written, the claimed system lacks structure and is therefore non-statutory. Accordingly, claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 2–3 and 5–12, which depend from claims 1 and 4, respectively, inherit the deficiencies described above. Further, claims 2–3 and 5–12 do not include any structural elements that would cure the identified deficiencies. As a result, claims 2–3 and 5–12 are similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 1–20 are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the framework, claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Claim 1 includes functionality “to onboard service providers and service requesters”; “to receive a service request from a service requester and match the request to a subset of service providers based on specific criteria”; and “to notify the selected service provider of the selection and the start of services, receive a start acceptance from the service provider, track the geolocation data of the service provider after receipt of the start acceptance, notify the service requester of the start acceptance and an estimated arrival of the service provider based on the geolocation data, and receive arrival and services completion confirmations from the service provider.”
The limitations above recite an abstract idea. More particularly, the elements above recite certain methods of organizing human activity for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people because the elements describe a process for matching service providers to service requests and managing performance of the service requests. Further, the elements above recite mental processes because the elements embody observations or evaluations that can be practically performed in the mind or by a human using pen and paper. As a result, claim 1 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
Claims 4 and 13 include substantially similar limitations to those included with respect to claim 1. As a result, claims 4 and 13 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Claims 2–3, 5–12, and 14–20 further describe the process for matching service providers to service requests and managing performance of the service requests and further recite certain methods of organizing human activity and/or mental processes for the same reasons as stated above. As a result, claims 2–3, 5–12, and 14–20 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include a computing environment, a matching engine, a lifecycle engine, and a function to store data. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional computer elements are generic computing components that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea, and the function to store data is an insignificant extrasolution activity to the recited abstract idea. As a result, claim 1 does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
As noted above, claims 4 and 13 include substantially similar limitations to those included with respect to claim 1. Although claim 13 further includes at least one computing device comprising at least one hardware processor, a machine learning algorithm, and a step for “compressing” data, the additional elements, when considered in view of the claim as a whole, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional computer elements are generic computing components that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea, and the remaining additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment. As a result, claims 4 and 13 do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 7–11 and 18–20 include additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include functionality “to distribute the workload across multiple servers or processing units” (claim 7), “to employ data normalization and indexing within a cloud-based data store” (claim 8), “to send … in a compressed format” (claim 9), “to implement caching mechanisms” (claim 10), “to synchronize data … based on network conditions and data priority” (claim 11), GPS technology (claim 18), a computing device (claim 19), and “lossless data compression techniques (claim 20). When considered in view of the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the computing device is a generic computing component that is merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea, and the remaining additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment. As a result, claims 7–11 and 18–20 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 2–3, 5–6, 12, and 14–17 do not include any additional elements beyond those included with respect to the claims from which claims 2–3, 5–6, 12, and 14–17 depend. As a result, claims 2–3, 5–6, 12, and 14–17 do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two for the same reasons as stated above.
With respect to Step 2B of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted above, claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include a computing environment, a matching engine, a lifecycle engine, and a function to store data. The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because the additional computer elements are generic computing components that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea, and the function to store data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional computer function in view of MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claim 1 does not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B.
As noted above, claims 4 and 13 include substantially similar limitations to those included with respect to claim 1. Although claim 13 further includes at least one computing device comprising at least one hardware processor, a machine learning algorithm, and a step for “compressing” data, the additional elements does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because the additional computer elements are generic computing components that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea, and the remaining additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claims 4 and 13 do not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 7–11 and 18–20 include additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include functionality “to distribute the workload across multiple servers or processing units” (claim 7), “to employ data normalization and indexing within a cloud-based data store” (claim 8), “to send … in a compressed format” (claim 9), “to implement caching mechanisms” (claim 10), “to synchronize data … based on network conditions and data priority” (claim 11), GPS technology (claim 18), a computing device (claim 19), and “lossless data compression techniques (claim 20). The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because the computing device is a generic computing component that is merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea, and the remaining additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claims 7–11 and 18–20 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 2–3, 5–6, 12, and 14–17 do not include any additional elements beyond those included with respect to the claims from which claims 2–3, 5–6, 12, and 14–17 depend. As a result, claims 2–3, 5–6, 12, and 14–17 do not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B for the same reasons as stated above.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1–7, 9, and 12–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klibanov et al. (U.S. 2021/0089997) in view of Li et al. (U.S. 2018/0108103).
Claims 1, 4, and 13: Klibanov discloses a system for managing service provider lifecycles in a networked environment, comprising:
a computing environment (See FIG. 3–4 and paragraphs 118–121) configured to onboard service providers and service requesters and store their data (See FIG. 6A and FIG. 7A, wherein service providers and service requesters register for the service, and FIG. 6G and FIG. 7G, wherein profile data is displayed, thereby indicating that the onboarding information is stored);
a matching engine (See FIG. 3–4 and paragraphs 118–121) configured to receive a service request from a service requester (See paragraph 29, wherein “the homeowner 105 uses the homeowner mobile device 110 via the network cloud 115 to submit a work request to the work assignment server”) and match the request to a subset of service providers based on specific criteria (See paragraph 29, wherein “the work assignment server 120 helps the homeowner 105 locate a worker to complete the homeowner's job by associating the available driver locations 160 with the homeowner's work request to find an available driver in proximity to the requested work location”); and
a lifecycle engine (See FIG. 3–4 and paragraphs 118–121) configured to notify the selected service provider of the selection and the start of services (See paragraph 29, wherein “the work assignment server sends a job notification to one of the available drivers in the list of available drivers 150 selected according to the available driver notification priorities”),
receive a start acceptance from the service provider (See paragraph 29, wherein “upon accepting a job notification, one of the available drivers 150 becomes the scheduled driver”),
track the location data of the service provider after receipt of the start acceptance (See FIG. 14 and paragraph 64, wherein “the processor 405 determining if the driver arrived to begin the job, based on location data”),
notify the service requester of the start acceptance (See FIG. 6F, wherein service requesters are notified of acceptance) and an estimated arrival of the service provider (See paragraph 132, wherein the system may “send an electronic message comprising an indication of the assigned worker expected arrival time at the job beginning location”), and
receive arrival and services completion confirmations from the service provider (See paragraph 29, wherein “the scheduled driver 170 checks in at the homeowner 105 home 130 location by capturing the mailbox 175 optical code 180 with the mobile device” and wherein “the scheduled driver 170 captures the trash receptacle 125 optical code 185 with the mobile device 155 at the job ending location 140 near a collection location at the public street”). Although Klibanov implicitly discloses tracking the geolocation of the service provider (See FIG. 14 and paragraph 64, wherein “the processor 405 determining if the driver arrived to begin the job, based on location data” and paragraph 31, wherein “the driver mobile device 155 may include a GPS module”), Klibanov does not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Li discloses functionality to track the geolocation data of the service provider after receipt of the start acceptance (See paragraphs 117 and 120–121, in view of paragraphs 32–33, wherein a provider vehicle is tagged and tracked on a display); and
an estimated arrival of the service provider based on the geolocation data (See paragraphs 76 and 81, in view of paragraphs 32–33, wherein an estimated time of arrival is determined based on location and speed).
Klibanov discloses a system directed to matching service providers to work assignments. Li discloses a system directed to matching service requests and vehicles. Each reference discloses a system directed to matching service requests to service providers. The technique of using geolocation monitoring is applicable to the system of Klibanov as they each share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to matching service requests to service providers.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Li would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Li to the teachings of Klibanov would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate matching service requests to service providers into similar systems. Further, applying geolocation monitoring to Klibanov would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more detailed analysis and more reliable results.
With respect to claim 13, Klibanov further discloses at least one computer device comprising at least one hardware processor (See FIG. 3–4 and paragraphs 118–121); and
employing a machine learning algorithm to match the request to a subset of service providers based on specific criteria (See paragraph 29, wherein “the work assignment server 120 helps the homeowner 105 locate a worker to complete the homeowner's job by associating the available driver locations 160 with the homeowner's work request to find an available driver in proximity to the requested work location”, in view of paragraph 32, wherein “a work assignment server 120 partition hosted on a PC or mobile device may choose to delegate some parts of computation, such as, for example, machine learning or deep learning, to a host server”). Although Klibanov discloses transmitting to the service requester (See FIG. 6F, wherein service requesters are notified of acceptance), Klibanov does not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Li discloses compressing the data before transmission (See paragraph 133, wherein data is compressed before transmission).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Li would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Claims 2, 5, and 17: Klibanov discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the specific criteria used by the matching engine comprises at least one of: proximity of the service providers to the requested service location (See paragraph 6, wherein workers are notified based on proximity to the job location), availability of the service providers during the requested service timeframe (See FIG. 6F, in view of paragraph 85, wherein workers register availability times), and credentials of the service providers (See paragraph 67, wherein workers are selected based on a star rating).
Claims 3, 6, and 18: Although Klibanov discloses providing updates to the service requester and the service provider about the status of the service request (See FIG. 6F and FIG. 7E), Klibanov does not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Li disclose wherein the engine is further configured to provide real-time updates to the service requester and the service provider about the status of the service request (See paragraph 61, wherein the service request includes a real-time position of the passenger, and paragraph 66, wherein real time location status information for the vehicle is obtained; see also paragraphs 116–117 and 120–121, in view of paragraphs 32–33, wherein a requester and provider locations are tagged and tracked on a display).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Li would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
With respect to claim 18, Li further discloses using GPS technology to monitor location (See paragraph 32).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Li would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Claim 7: Klibanov discloses the system of claim 4, wherein the computing environment is further configured to distribute the workload across multiple servers or processing units, ensuring that no single device is overwhelmed (See paragraphs 31–32, wherein the environment may be realized in a distributed implementation such that devices “may delegate computation-intensive tasks to a host server to take advantage of a more powerful processor, or to offload excess work”).
Claim 9: Although Klibanov discloses sending notifications and updates (See citations above), Klibanov does not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Li discloses wherein the computing environment is further configured to send notifications and updates in a compressed format, reducing the size of data packets transmitted over the network (See paragraph 133, wherein data is compressed before transmission).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Li would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Claim 12: Klibanov discloses the system of claim 4, wherein the computing environment is further configured to analyze historical data and usage patterns to predict peak times and pre-allocate resources accordingly (See FIG. 15 and paragraph 65, wherein “the probability a specific trash receptacle may need to be transported in the near term may be recalculated in real time as nearby trash receptacles are transported in alignment with municipal collection schedules and historical work request data. In some examples, drivers may be notified with suggestions to temporarily position themselves in areas expected to experience higher than average predicted near-term demand, advantageously encouraging drivers to relocate toward areas with higher anticipated demand”).
Claim 14: Klibanov discloses the method of claim 13, wherein the onboarding of service providers and service requesters includes collecting information about the service providers and service requesters, such as their credentials, availability, geographical location, and other relevant details (See FIG. 6G and FIG. 7G, wherein profile data includes location and other details; see also paragraphs 85 and 89).
Claim 15: Klibanov discloses the method of claim 14, wherein the geographical location data is used for matching service requests to service providers based on proximity (See paragraph 6, in view of FIG. 7G and paragraph 85, wherein workers are notified based on proximity to the job location).
Claim 16: Klibanov discloses the method of claim 14, wherein the availability data is used to match service requests to service providers based on the service providers' availability during the requested service timeframe (See paragraph 29, as above, in view of FIG. 6F and paragraph 85, wherein workers register availability times for receiving job notifications).
Claim 19: Klibanov discloses the method of claim 18, wherein the tracking of the service provider's location enables the system to provide the service requester with an estimated arrival time of the service provider (See paragraph 132, wherein the system may “send an electronic message comprising an indication of the assigned worker expected arrival time at the job beginning location”), and
the arrival and services completion confirmations from the service provider are received through manual confirmations by the service provider via a computing device (See paragraph 29, wherein “the scheduled driver 170 checks in at the homeowner 105 home 130 location by capturing the mailbox 175 optical code 180 with the mobile device” and wherein “the scheduled driver 170 captures the trash receptacle 125 optical code 185 with the mobile device 155 at the job ending location 140 near a collection location at the public street”). Klibanov does not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Li discloses the real-time tracking of the service provider's location enables the system to provide the service requester with an estimated arrival time of the service provider (See paragraphs 76 and 81, in view of paragraphs 32–33, wherein an estimated time of arrival is determined based on location and speed).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Li would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Claim 20: Klibanov discloses the method of claim 13, wherein the machine learning algorithm is configured to learn and adapt over time to improve the accuracy of matching service requests with service providers based on the specific criteria (See paragraph 29, wherein “the work assignment server 120 helps the homeowner 105 locate a worker to complete the homeowner's job by associating the available driver locations 160 with the homeowner's work request to find an available driver in proximity to the requested work location”, in view of paragraph 32, wherein “a work assignment server 120 partition hosted on a PC or mobile device may choose to delegate some parts of computation, such as, for example, machine learning or deep learning, to a host server”). Klibanov does not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Li discloses the data compression comprises employing lossless data compression techniques to reduce the size of the matched service provider data without loss of information before transmission to the service requester (See paragraph 133, wherein lossless data compression is disclosed).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Li would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Claims 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klibanov et al. (U.S. 2021/0089997) in view of Li et al. (U.S. 2018/0108103), and in further view of Shiely et al. (U.S. 2020/0090119).
Claim 8: As disclosed above, Klibanov and Li disclose the elements of claim 4. Although Klibanov discloses data processing (See paragraph 30, wherein data is processed and analyzed), and Li discloses a cloud-based data store (See paragraph 133), Klibanov and Li do not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Shiely discloses wherein the computing environment is further configured to employ data normalization and indexing within a cloud-based data store to streamline data retrieval and minimize storage overhead (See paragraphs 23, 26, and 82, wherein data is formatted and indexed in a data store for retrieval; see also paragraph 114, wherein storage may be a cloud-based storage).
As disclosed above, Klibanov discloses a system directed to matching service providers to work assignments, and Li discloses a system directed to matching service requests and vehicles. Shiely discloses a system directed to scheduling product delivery. Each reference discloses a system directed to scheduling and fulfilling service requests. The technique of using normalization and indexing is applicable to the systems of Klibanov and Li as they each share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to scheduling and fulfilling service requests.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Shiely would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Shiely to the teachings of Klibanov and Li would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate scheduling and fulfilling service requests into similar systems. Further, applying normalization and indexing to Klibanov and Li would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more detailed analysis and more reliable results.
Claim 10: Klibanov and Li do not expressly disclose the elements of claim 10.
Shiely discloses wherein the computing environment is further configured to implement caching mechanisms to store frequently accessed data locally on the computing device, reducing the number of repeated queries to the server (See paragraphs 30 and 32, wherein caching mechanisms are utilized for storing scheduling and delivery information).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Shiely would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 8.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klibanov et al. (U.S. 2021/0089997) in view of Li et al. (U.S. 2018/0108103), and in further view of Chan et al. (U.S. 2014/0289196).
Claim 11: As disclosed above, Klibanov and Li disclose the elements of claim 4. Klibanov and Li do not expressly disclose the elements of claim 11.
Chan discloses wherein the computing environment is further configured to synchronize data between entities based on network conditions and data priority (See Abstract and paragraphs 49 and 61, wherein files are synchronized between a user computing device and a vehicle computing device based on priority and network type/proximity).
As disclosed above, Klibanov discloses a system directed to matching service providers to work assignments, and Li discloses a system directed to matching service requests and vehicles. Chan discloses a system directed to scheduling product delivery. Each reference discloses a system directed to managing communications. The technique of using data synchronization is applicable to the systems of Klibanov and Li as they each share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to managing communications.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Chan would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Chan to the teachings of Klibanov and Li would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate communication management into similar systems. Further, applying data synchronization to Klibanov and Li would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more detailed analysis and more reliable results.
Conclusion
The following prior art is made of record and not relied upon but is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Miao et al. (Miao, Fei, et al. "Taxi dispatch with real-time sensing data in metropolitan areas: A receding horizon control approach." Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE Sixth International Conference on Cyber-Physical Systems. 2015.) discloses a system directed to dispatching taxis based on GPS location monitoring and supply/demand analysis.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM S BROCKINGTON III whose telephone number is (571)270-3400. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am-5pm, EST.
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 at 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 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.
/WILLIAM S BROCKINGTON III/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623