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 1 has been examined.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 17 of the specification, “[0068]” appears, supposedly beginning a new paragraph, but still within the paragraph begun as [0067]; this is followed by the next line but one being very short, after which paragraph [0068] resumes. Further, on page 30 of the specification, “[0097]” appears, supposedly beginning a new paragraph, but still within the paragraph begun as [0096]; this is followed several lines down by an exceedingly short line, after which paragraph [0097] resumes. There is a very short line halfway down page 32, and another one at the bottom of page 32. In the first two lines of page 33, “cutting-edgesolutions” should be “cutting-edge solutions”. On page 30 of the specification, “[0105]” appears, supposedly beginning a new paragraph, but still within the paragraph begun as [0104]. On page 40 of the specification, the seventh line of paragraph [0118] is very short. A few lines later on page 40, “[0119]” appears, which should be the beginning of a distinct paragraph, but is not. The sixth line of paragraph [0121], at the bottom of page 40, is very short, and consists of “notintended”, which should be “not intended”. In the third line of page 41, “[0122]” appears, which should be the beginning of a distinct paragraph, but is not.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In the second line, “methodcomprising” should be “method comprising”. In the fifth line “ordermanagement” should be “order management”. In the sixth and seventh lines, “with a nearby service professionals” should be either “with a nearby service professional” or else “with nearby service professionals”. In the eighth line, “the joborder” should be “the job order”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
In light of the ambiguity of the sixth and seventh lines of claim 1, and in accordance with the principle of giving claims being examined their broadest reasonable interpretation, claim 1 will be construed for examination purposes as reading on matching a user with one or more service professional(s).
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because it is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea).
The following 35 U.S.C. 101 analysis is performed in accordance with section 2106 of the Manual of Patent Examination Procedure (concerning Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance). First, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a statutory category of invention. See MPEP 2106.03 (II). In the instant case, claim 1 is directed to a method, and thus to the statutory category of process. Therefore, claim 1 is directed to statutory subject matter under Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo test. (Step 1: YES).
The claims are then analyzed to determine whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.04. The claims are analyzed to evaluate whether they recite a judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong One) as well as analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong Two). See MPEP 2106.04.
Under Step 2A, Prong One, claim 1 involves “matching a user with [one or more] nearby service professionals via a marketplace network to generate a job order”. This is an abstract idea, specifically in commercial interactions, under the category of certain methods of organizing human activity. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES)
Under Step 2A, Prong Two, claim 1 recites no technology except a presumed computer that make claim 1 a “computer-implemented method”, and perhaps a technological “marketplace network”. The computer and network are recited only at a high level of abstraction. Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea are not indicative of integration into a practical application. (Moreover, the “marketplace network” could be a network of people who participate in a marketplace, rather than something technological.) Claim 1 does not recite improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. Claim 1 does not recite applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition. Claim 1 does not recite applying the judicial exception with, or by the use of, a particular machine. Claim 1 does not recite effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to different state or thing. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity is also not indicative of integration into a practical application. There are no limitations which would, alone or in combination, be indicative of integration into a practical application. (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO)
Next, under Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, the claims are analyzed to determine whether there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05. The instant claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for at least the following reasons. There are no limitations which would, alone or in combination, be indicative of integration into a practical application. What is set forth in the preceding paragraph regarding Step 2A, Prong Two also applies to Step 2B. Furthermore, even construing the “marketplace network” as a technological network, such as the Internet or a LAN or WAN, using such a technological network would not raise claim 1 to significantly more than the abstract idea. The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090,1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network). Hence, using such a technological network need involve only well-understood, routine, and conventional functions and technology. (Step 2B: NO)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gallagher et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0172479) in view of Dulori (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0234380). Gallagher discloses a computer-implemented method of generating a work order (Abstract, emphasis added), “A computer-implemented home maintenance and service system and method provide automated, integrated user profiling, service provider matching, and work order creation. The system and method facilitate the computer-implemented, automatic creation of service transactions, in the form of actionable work orders that can be utilized by service providers.” Gallagher further discloses performing a task comprising at least service provider matching; based on the performed task, matching a user with one or more service professionals via a marketplace network to generate a job order; and managing the job order (Abstract, quoted above, and further in paragraph 8, emphasis added): “The matching program matches the customer’s service request and account profile to a service provider database and home related information from the home information database. The matching program then creates an initial work order and sends it through a portal to service providers that have been matched to the service request by the matching program. Service providers may accept, reject, or ignore the initial work order. An accepted initial work order is sent from the service provider’s portal to the system, and is analyzed with other acceptances by the matching program. The matching program selects an available service provider and notifies the selected available service provider(s) through the service provider’s portal. Upon receipt of acceptance of the selection by the service provider, the service order processor creates a final work order by combining the service request and a service provider profile from the matching program and home information related to the service request from the home profile database. The final work order is provided to the service provider through the portal, and the service provider utilizes the work order to carry out the service request at the home of the customer. The service provider then completes the final work order by submitting it to the service order processor through the service provider portal. The service order processor finally updates the home profile database with information from the completed work order.” See also paragraph 29.
Gallagher’s disclosed interactions of customers and service providers establish the existence of a marketplace. Gallagher discloses the use of the Internet and/or other networks (e.g., paragraph 29, emphasis added), “A preferred embodiment is directed to a method for managing home maintenance activities of a dwelling homeowner/resident connected to a service brokering system, in particular via the Internet.” Hence, a marketplace network is disclosed as used.
The service providers in Gallagher could in any case be viewed as service professionals; however, Gallagher further discloses providing professional services, making the service providers service professionals, at least in some instances (paragraph 142, emphasis added), “Examples include, but are not limited to, computer repair services; automobile repair services; gardening, lawn care, and landscaping services; subsets of, or niches within, the home services market, such as appliance repair services; physical health maintenance and profile; and other professional services (legal, medical, dental).”
Gallagher does not expressly disclose that the one or more service professionals are nearby service professionals, but Gallagher does disclose the use of geographic data (paragraph 42, emphasis added), “In like fashion, service providers/contractors user service provider/contractor dashboards or portals to provide user data which includes name, contact information, licensing, insurance, references along with services and skills they are capable of providing and geographic data regarding their location in relation to the customer residence.” Moreover, claim 10 of Gallagher recites (emphasis added): “The service request match processor of claim 1, wherein the service request match processor is programmed to select at least one best fit match of a service provider based on variables including dates and times selected by the user, total number of visits required to complete the service request, quality rating of the service provider, geographic location of the user, service provider availability, or user criteria ranking or combinations thereof.” Presumably, service providers near to the user’s geographic location would be preferred to those hundreds of miles away. Furthermore, Dulori teaches (paragraph 165, emphasis added), “Further, the closest service provider user 207 matching the search request may be presented prominently on customer user interface 308 that is located within some threshold distance of the customer user’s 308 current geographic location.” Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventor’s earliest priority for the one or more service professionals to be nearby service professionals, for such obvious advantages as selecting a service professional who could conveniently come to a customer’s home or current location, or a service professional to whose office or place of business a customer could quickly and conveniently travel.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Dylla (U.S. Patent 11,328,348) discloses an obfuscated service provider identity during client selection.
Rice et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2006/0184381) disclose a computer-implemented method and system for matching a consumer to a home service provider. Dylla (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0051s161) discloses an obfuscated service provider identity during client selection.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS D ROSEN, whose telephone number is (571)272-6762. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM-5:30 PM, M-F. Non-official/draft communications may be faxed to the examiner at 571-273-6762, or emailed to Nicholas.Rosen@uspto.gov (in the body of an email, please, not as an attachment).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Marissa Thein, can be reached at 571-272-6764. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NICHOLAS D ROSEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689 December 3, 2025