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 .
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 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written requirement. The claim contained subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claims 1 and 11, with Claim 1 as representative: Claim 1 recites …to convert an evaluation item of a buyer… and to evaluate matching suitability through calculation of the quantized value for the converted evaluation item…; One of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood that the Applicant had possession of the claimed feature (above) at the time of filing.
The claims and specification fail to sufficiently describe how to convert the evaluation item of the buyer. There is no disclosure as to what the evaluation item itself is. The only disclosure of an evaluation item of a buyer is in the claims, and an evaluation item of a purchasing organization is disclosed in a few paragraphs of the specification, such as in [0019], as the definition of x of the equation without any further detail. There is no disclosure as to whether the evaluation item is a specific product the bid is for or whether it is a parameter of evaluation of what the buyer wants.
It is noted that this is not an enablement rejection. Applicant’s failure to sufficiently describe any algorithm, steps, or procedures taken to perform the claimed function raises questions as to whether Applicant truly has possession of this feature at the time of filing.
Regarding dependent claims 2-10 and 12-17: Claims 2-10 and 12-17 depend from claims 1 and 11, and inherit the deficiencies of claims 1 and 11. As such, dependent claims 1-20 and 12-17 are rejected along with claims 1 and 11 for at least the reasons above.
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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.
Regarding Claims 1 and 11, with Claim 1 as representative: Claim 1 recites …to convert an evaluation item of a buyer… and to evaluate matching suitability through calculation of the quantized value for the converted evaluation item…;
As discussed above, the specification does not provide any disclosure beyond what is in the claims, and as such, it is not clear what the evaluation item itself is. The only disclosure of an evaluation item of a buyer is in the claims, and an evaluation item of a purchasing organization is disclosed in a few paragraphs of the specification, such as in [0019], as the definition of x of the equation without any further detail. As such, there is no clear disclosure of what an evaluation item is and how it is converted into a quantized value, and the metes and bounds are indefinite. For the sake of compact prosecution, evaluation item will be interpreted as a parameter or criteria of a seller or product that the buyer desires.
Regarding dependent claims 2-10 and 12-17: Claims 2-10 and 12-17 depend from claims 1 and 11, and inherit the deficiencies of claims 1 and 11. As such, dependent claims 1-20 and 12-17 are rejected along with claims 1 and 11 for at least the reasons above.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the work “means”, but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: recited in claim 2:
a company information management unit (110) configured to manage company analysis information, product analysis information, financial analysis information, bidding environment information, and company capability information about each company provided from a company;
a bid notice management unit (120) configured to receive bid notice information by connecting to one or more buyer terminals (310, 311, 312) and to manage the bid notice information by buyer by dividing the received bid notice information into general terms and conditions, special terms and conditions, and specifications;
a suitability analysis unit (130) configured to analyze and evaluate the matching suitability for a bidding condition required by the buyer by mapping one or more company keywords extracted from the profile information by using the artificial intelligence-based suitability analysis model onto one or more words or sentences retrieved from the bid notice by buyer corresponding to the company keywords, to extract the optimal bid notice having the highest matching value, based on the calculated value of the evaluated matching suitability, and to transmit the extracted bid notice to company terminals (210, 211, and 212) by matching the extracted bid notice to the corresponding company.
Because this/these claims limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. In paragraph [0045], the specification discloses that unit refers to a unit for processing at least one function or operation, and may be configured as hardware, software, or a combination thereof. The algorithms for the various limitations are disclosed within the specification as follows: a company information management unit (110) configured to manage company analysis information, product analysis information, financial analysis information, bidding environment information, and company capability information about each company provided from a company (paragraph [0059-0060]); a bid notice management unit (120) configured to receive bid notice information by connecting to one or more buyer terminals (310, 311, 312) and to manage the bid notice information by buyer by dividing the received bid notice information into general terms and conditions, special terms and conditions, and specifications (paragraph [0073-0074] and [0030]; see also: [0143]); a suitability analysis unit (130) configured to analyze and evaluate the matching suitability for a bidding condition required by the buyer by mapping one or more company keywords extracted from the profile information by using the artificial intelligence-based suitability analysis model onto one or more words or sentences retrieved from the bid notice by buyer corresponding to the company keywords, to extract the optimal bid notice having the highest matching value, based on the calculated value of the evaluated matching suitability, and to transmit the extracted bid notice to company terminals (210, 211, and 212) by matching the extracted bid notice to the corresponding company (paragraph [0091-0094]).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 12, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-10 are directed to a system, which is an apparatus. Claims 11-17 are directed to a method, which is a process. Therefore, claims 1-17 are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A (Prong 1):
Taking claim 1 as representative, claim 1 sets forth the following limitations reciting the abstract idea of evaluating suitability for matching a buyer with a company and extracting a bid notice:
match one or more bid notices, extracted by comparing profile information by company that meets an international bidding requirement with meta information of a bid notice by buyer, with a corresponding company to convert an evaluation item of a buyer, a requirement of general terms and conditions of the buyer, a requirement of special terms and conditions of the buyer, and a requirement of technical specifications of the buyer that are included in the bid notice of the buyer into a quantized value corresponding to a requirement by item, based on common information between the profile information and the meta information, to evaluate matching suitability through calculation of the quantized value for the converted evaluation item and the requirement by item, and to extract an optimal bid notice in which a calculated value of the matching suitability has a highest matching value,
wherein the calculated value of the matching suitability is calculated by the following equation: E = x(y1 + y2 + y3),
where E is the calculated value of the matching suitability; x is an evaluation item of a purchasing organization, which is a constant; as values for a quantified item-specific requirement of the purchasing organization with respect to the company, which are variables, y1 is a standardized value for the requirement of the general terms and conditions of the buyer, y2 is a standardized value for the requirement of the special terms and conditions of the buyer, and y3 is a standardized value for the requirement of the technical specifications of the buyer.
The recited limitations above set forth the process for evaluating suitability for matching a buyer with a company and extracting a bid notice. These limitations amount to certain methods of organizing human activity, including commercial or legal interactions (e.g. advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, etc.). The claims are directed to gathering information, converting and quantizing the information to determine a suitability score to match bid notices, which is a sales and marketing activity. These limitations also amount to mathematical concepts, including mathematical formulas and equations, and calculations. The claims are directed to quantizing certain information and inputting them into a specific equation to determine a score, which is a mathematical equation and calculation.
Such concepts have been identified by the courts as abstract ideas (see: MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Step 2A (Prong 2):
Examiner acknowledges that representative Claim 1 does recite additional elements, such as:
a suitability analysis server (100);
stored in a bidding company database (200);
a bid notice database (300);
using an artificial intelligence-based suitability analysis model;
Taken individually and as a whole, representative claim 1 does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception as the additional elements merely serve to implement the abstract idea in a computing environment.
Furthermore, this is also because the claim fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement a judicial exception with a particular machine, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
While there is recitation of a server and various databases, these elements are recited with a very high level of generality, and are only recited in performing the steps of the abstract idea. The suitability analysis server is not disclosed with any particularity in the specification, merely disclosing that the server includes various units (specification: [0049]; see also: Fig. 2). There is no disclosure of the technical makeup of the server or any particular computing component, and it is clear that the server is any generic server that is merely being implemented to perform the abstract idea over a network on a computing device. The databases are also not disclosed with any particularity, merely disclosing that they store information. As such, it is evident that the databases are any generic method of storing data that is merely utilized to provide a general link to a computing environment. The claims also do not recite the artificial intelligence-based suitability analysis model with any particularity except that it is used to provide a calculation of the abstract idea. There is no further detail to what the artificial-based suitability analysis model is or how it functions at a technical level. Specification paragraph [0116] merely discloses that the model may be configured in an expression of a deep learning model or a deep learning analysis model, and Fig. 1 only shows a block diagram of the server and the databases. As such, it is evident that the intelligence-based suitability analysis model is any generic artificial intelligence that is only applied to the abstract idea to provide an output. The additional elements only serve to provide a general link to a computing environment, but the claims, individually and as a whole, are directed to the abstract idea.
In view of the above, under Step 2A (Prong 2), claim 1 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application (see: MPEP 2106.04(d)).
Step 2B:
Returning to claim 1, taken individually or as a whole, the additional elements of claim 15 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). As noted above, the additional elements recited in representative claim 1 are recited in a generic manner with a high level of generality and only serve to implement the abstract idea on a generic computing device. The claims result only in an improved abstract idea itself and do not reflect improvements to the functioning of a computer or another technology or technical field. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process ultimately amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of claim 1 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, claim 15 does not provide an inventive concept under step 2B, and is ineligible for patenting.
Regarding Claim 11 (method): Claim 11 recites at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claim 1 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, claims 11 is rejected under at least similar rationale as provided above regarding claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-17 recite further complexity to the judicial exception (abstract idea) of claim 1, such as by further defining the algorithm for evaluating suitability for matching a buyer with a company and extracting a bid notice. Thus, each of claims 2-10 and 12-17 are held to recite a judicial exception under Step 2A (Prong 1) for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Under prong 2 of step 2A, the additional elements of dependent claims 2-10 and 12-17 also do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, considered both individually or as a whole. More specifically, dependent claims 2-10 and 12-17 rely on at least similar elements as recited in claim 1. Further additional elements are also acknowledged (e.g. buyer terminals and company terminals (claim 2)); however, the additional elements of claims 2-10 and 12-17 are recited only at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Secondly, this is also because the claims fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Taken individually and as a whole, dependent claims 2-10 and 12-17 do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception under step 2A (prong 2).
Lastly, under step 2B, claims 2-10 and 12-17 also fail to result in “significantly more” than the abstract idea under step 2B. The dependent claims recite additional functions that describe the abstract idea and use the computing device to implement the abstract idea, while failing to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer, another technology, or technical field. The dependent claims fail to confer eligibility under step 2B because the claims merely apply the exception on generic computing hardware and generally link the exception to a technological environment.
Even when viewed as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the dependent claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
Taken individually or as an ordered combination, the dependent claims simply convey the abstract idea itself applied on a generic computer and are held to be ineligible under Steps 2B for at least similar rationale as discussed above regarding claim 1. Thus, dependent claims 2-10 and 12-17 do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
Though the claims remain rejected on other grounds, the following is an Examiner’s statement of reasons for indicating subject matter free of the prior art.
Upon review of the evidence at hand, it is hereby concluded that the totality of the evidence, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, nor renders obvious the features of the Applicant’s invention.
The most pertinent prior art of record include Seroussi (US 20200202400 A1), Toren (US 20220076306 A1), Norman (US 20210390600 A1), and PTO-892 Reference U.
Seroussi discloses a system for matching buyers with a list of parameters with a seller a second list of parameters regarding their product by computing a weighted score of the parameters. The weighted scores are based on user-defined weighted scoring criteria to find the best match. Notably, however, Seroussi does not disclose matching bid notices, or converting an evaluation item of the buyer, a requirement of general and special terms and conditions, and a requirement of technical specifications in an equation for suitability.
Toren discloses a system for matching products of a supplier with retailers to supply the products to. Supplier accounts are associated with merchant accounts corresponding to online stores, and comparing the products of the supplier and online stores with a similarity score to recommend associations. Notably, however, Toren does not disclose matching bid notices, or converting an evaluation item of the buyer, a requirement of general and special terms and conditions, and a requirement of technical specifications in an equation for suitability.
Norman discloses a system for a marketplace that matches buyers and sellers using requirement information received from the buyers and qualification information received from the sellers. A score is calculated of the match between the buyer and various sellers between the parameters of the asset requested by the consumer and available assets of the sellers. Notably, however, Norman does not disclose any international bidding requirement, converting of various requirements or a quantized value of evaluation items or requirements.
PTO-892 Reference U discloses a method for businesses to find appropriate trading partners such that they are matched in a marketplace by choosing appropriate sellers from their specific requirements using the profiles of the suppliers. Notably, however, PTO-892 Reference U does not disclose any international bidding requirement, converting of various requirements or a quantized value of evaluation items or requirements.
The Examiner further emphasizes the claims as a whole and hereby asserts that the totality of the evidence fails to set forth, either explicitly or implicitly, as appropriate rationale for further modification to the evidence at hand to arrive at the claimed invention. Moreover, the combination of features as claimed could not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because any combination of the evidence at hand to reach the combination of features as claimed would require substantial reconstruction based on improper hindsight bias, and would require knowledge gleaned only from Applicant’s disclosure.
It is hereby asserted by the Examiner, that in light of the above and in further deliberation over all of the evidence at hand, that the claims are free of the prior art as the evidence at hand does not anticipate the claims and does not render obvious any further modification of the references to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Notably, however, the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), 112(b), and 35 U.S.C. 101. These rejections must also be overcome.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY J KANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8069. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 7:30 - 5:00.
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, Kelly Campen can be reached at 571-272-6740. 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.
/TIMOTHY J KANG/ Examiner, Art Unit 3688