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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on October 16, 2025 has been entered.
Notice to Applicant
The following is a Non-Final Office Action for Application Serial Number: 18/643,360, filed on April 23, 2024. In response to Examiner's Final Office Action dated May 16, 2025, Applicant on October 16, 2025, amended claim 1 and added new claims 11-16. Claims 1-16 are pending in this application and have been rejected below.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendments are acknowledged.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicants arguments and amendments have been considered but are insufficient to overcome the rejection.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections are amended in light of Applicant’s amendments. New 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections have been applied to new claims 11-16.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's Arguments/Remarks filed October 16, 2025 (hereinafter Applicant Remarks) have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant’s Remarks will be addressed herein below in the order in which they appear in the response filed October 16, 2025.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicant states while not agreeing with the Examiner, but rather in a good faith effort to advance prosecution, Applicant has amended claim 1 to further recite "wherein a permitted data layer is decryptable only with a hash key generated for the bidding one of the prospective time buyers". Amended claim 1 now clarifies that a hash key is generated for the prospective time buyer for enabling a permission-based decryption of a demand hash for each possible consumer, demonstrating that the invention is not an abstract idea, but rather a specific computing system with a practical application that provides encrypted consumer-time buyer interaction and matching. Further, the system improves the technical fields of privacy and access control and includes steps that cannot be practically performed mentally or using pen and paper.
In response, Examiner respectfully does not find Applicants arguments persuasive. Examiner finds, as presented, the cryptology elements of the claim are recited in a way that is not sufficiently supported by the specification (see 35 U.S.C. 112a rejection below) at a high level of generality to which does not take the claim out of the certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes groupings.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicant states Examiner asserts that the claim is directed to a method of organizing human activity. However, this characterization oversimplifies the invention and overlooks its core technological nature and integration into a specific system and practical application. Claim 1 does not merely recite economic relationships or basic human interactions. Instead, it recites a computer-implemented system, comprising a memory and hardware processor, that performs structured operations with encrypted hashes and keys that involve encrypted consumer data, third-party verification, algorithmic analysis, and permission-based decryption.
The claimed system goes beyond organizing human activity between time buyers and consumers-it facilitates secure, data-driven transactions and matching through a cryptographically enforced exchange architecture. This architecture allows time buyers to interact with consumers based on verified, encrypted data, while maintaining strict access controls via hash keys and permitted data layers. Such features reflect a practical application of computing technology, not an abstract idea based on a method of organizing human activity.
Technical elements of the system such as demand hashes containing encrypted personal data, algorithmic bid analysis, and controlled access via unique decryption keys transform an alleged abstract concept into a concrete implementation that leverages computer systems in a non-generic and inventive way. Accordingly, claim 1 is not directed an abstract idea based on a method of organizing human activity, but to a specific computing system with a practical application that resolves a problem rooted in computer technology regarding consumer-time buyer interaction, privacy, and matching..
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner has reviewed the pending claims and original disclosure in its entirety and respectfully notes the cryptographic elements of the pending invention are disclosure in the specification at a high level on generality such that it amounts to not more than a tool a user can use encrypt/decrypt information in their profile (see Specification par. 0038). Examiner maintains the claims recite an abstract idea matching consumers and bidding time buyers (i.e., sellers) based on algorithmic analysis constituting methods based on commercial interactions involving advertising, marketing, sales activities or behaviors and managing interactions between people, as well as, methods that mimic human thought processes that can be performed mentally by a combination of the human mind and a human using pen and paper.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicant states the claims are directed to a specific improvement in the technical fields of data privacy and access control. In particular, claim 1 introduces the concept of a "permitted data layer" that is "decryptable only with a hash key generated for the bidding one of the prospective time buyers." This feature enforces secure access to consumer data by ensuring that only authorized buyers can decrypt and view sensitive information, such as spending habits, location, and time availability.
This selective access control is not a mere business rule or mental process; it is a solution to a technical problem in the field of secure data exchange-namely, how to allow dynamic, buyer-specific access to user data without compromising user privacy or exposing unpermitted information. The system improves upon conventional approaches by integrating encryption, third-party verification, and cryptographic hash key logic directly into the core functionality of the matching algorithm. The claim is therefore analogous to those found patent-eligible in Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc., 879 F. 3d 1299 and DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014), where the courts recognized claims directed to improvements in computer security and network architecture as patent-eligible subject matter..
In response Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes in Finjan, the court identified that the claims were an improvement in computer functionality, reciting specific steps in sufficient detail of a behavior-based approach to virus scanning which is an improvement over traditional code-matching virus scanning that enabled a computer security system to do things it could not do before with a new kind of file. DDR Holdings is an example of a case that presents an invention that is rooted in computer technology. Specifically, the court found when a third party's advertisement hyperlink was selected by a user on a host's web page, the system would automatically identify the host web page, retrieve corresponding "look and feel" information from storage for the host page and generate a hybrid web page including the merchant information from the third-party web page with the "look and feel" elements of the host's website. This is different from conventional Internet hyperlink operations which would redirect a user to the third-party page away from the host's web page when the hyperlink is activated and therefore added a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field. Examiner finds there is not similar improvement here. In contrast, the present claims are directed to the data analysis of matching consumers to sellers. Applicant has not identified any limitations in the claimed invention that shows or submits that the technology used is being improved or there was a problem in the technology that the claimed invention solves.
9. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicant states contrary to the Examiner's assertion, the claimed steps cannot be practically performed in the human mind or using pen and paper. The system performs a series of steps that require computational resources, including the generation and use of cryptographic hash keys, the encryption and decryption of data layers, and algorithmic analysis of bids in relation to encrypted user data. These operations go well beyond human mental capabilities and require a computer to carry them out in any reasonable amount of time.
Applicant specifically references the August 4, 2025, memorandum from the Deputy Commissioner for Patents, which provides guidance on analyzing whether claims fall within the "mental processes" category (see p. 8, Applicant Remarks).
In accordance with this guidance, claim 1 clearly includes limitations that cannot be practically performed in the human mind, including the algorithmic analysis of encrypted data and the cryptographic control of access to permitted data layers via hash keys. These limitations are inherently computational and are not the kind of "observations, evaluations, judgments, or opinions" that fall within the mental process grouping. Therefore, under the USPTO's own eligibility framework, and further reinforced in the August 2025 memorandum, claim 1 does not recite a mental process and is not directed to an abstract idea.
For the reasons stated above, Applicant submits that claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea, and even if it were, the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea and integrate the idea into a specific computing system with a practical application. The claimed system solves a technical problem using a specific technical solution involving cryptographic access control, algorithmic analysis, and verified encrypted data-all of which are beyond the scope of human mental processing or mere organization of human activity. Claims 2-10 all depend ultimately from claim 1. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes the August 4th Memorandum is not new guidance, but a reminder to follow the current guidance. Furthermore, Examiner finds Applicants remarks are also directed to limitations that recite additional elements (i.e. cryptographic elements), and therefore were not analyzed under Step 2A-Prong One but also do not take the claim out of the certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes groupings. Examiner maintains the claims recite addition elements used as tools to perform the instructions of the abstract idea without disclosing limitations that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do these elements provide meaningful limitations that transforms the judicial exception into significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Applicant has not presented an argument or identified any disclosure that would alter this analysis. For at least these reasons the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 9-11, filed October 16, 2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made. Applicant’s arguments are considered moot because they are directed to newly amended subject matter and do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection. Please refer to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection for further explanation and rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains 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 a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “wherein a permitted data layer is decryptable only with a hash key generated for the bidding one of the prospective time buyers”. Paragraph [0038] (also paragraph 0048 of the published application) of the Specification states, in part, “Data keys, or hashes, are created for each person profiled in the system. A hash is used to encrypt the profile data wherein different hash keys unlock different layers of a user's profile. Therefore, a user can choose to decrypt or reveal only to a certain extent, as desired. For example, the user can reveal a salary range as opposed to an exact figure. A user can reveal that they have children, but would not have to reveal how many or their ages. Encrypted data like user characteristics can also be selectively revealed (i.e., hair color, height). Different users in the systems are given different levels of verification.”. There is no description given to the permitted layer being decryptable only with a hash key generated for the bidding one of the prospective time buyers. The specification fails to provide support for the concept, because “the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention including how to program the disclosed computer to perform the claimed function” (MPEP 2161.01 para. 6). For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret accordingly.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-16 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "wherein a permitted data layer is decryptable only with a hash key generated for the bidding one of the prospective time buyers" in lines 15-16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Instead, the interpretation should be a statement of “wherein [a] the permitted data layer is decryptable only with a hash key generated for the bidding one of the prospective time buyers”. Appropriate action is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Step 1: The claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Claims 1-16 are directed towards a method, which is among the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A – Prong One: The claims recite an abstract idea.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite matching consumers and bidding time buyers based on algorithmic analysis.
Claim 1 recites limitations directed to an abstract idea based on certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes. Specifically wherein each of the demand hashes is, in part, a verification of the third-party verified user data of the respective consumer by the third-party verification source, wherein the demand hash comprises at least one of a consumer preference, a spending habit, location data, and a past spending history of the consumer, receive a bid from a one of the prospective time buyers directed to at least two of the plurality of consumers; algorithmically analyze each of the demand hashes to which the bid is directed and the bid to assess a permitted data layer, if any, to the demand hash for the bidding one of prospective time buyers with respect to each of the consumers; and establish a match between at least one of the consumers and the bidding time buyer based on the algorithmic analysis constitutes methods based on commercial interactions involving advertising, marketing, sales activities or behaviors and managing interactions between people. The claims also constitutes methods based on evaluations, observation, judgement and/or opinion that can be performed by a combination of the human mind and a human using pen and paper. The recitation the a exchange system comprising a memory communicatively coupled to a hardware processor and demand hashes does not take the claim out of the certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes groupings. Thus the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites receive a unique demand hash for each of a plurality of consumers, including remote spending data, location data, and time availability for the respective consumer and a permitted data layer for each of a plurality of different prospective time buyers, which are limitations considered to be insignificant extra-solution activities of collecting and delivering data; see MPEP 2106.05(g). Claim 1 recites an exchange system comprising a memory comprising executable instructions by a hardware processor, demand hashes, hash keys and data layers at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than generic computer components used as tools to apply the instructions of the abstract idea; see MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, claim 1 recites each of the demand hashes comprising at least an encryption of third-party verified user data; and wherein a permitted data layer is decryptable only with a hash key generated for the bidding one of the prospective time buyers. The general use of cryptologic techniques does not provide a meaningful limitation to transform the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the encryption and decryption elements disclosed in the claims are solely used as a tool to perform the instructions of the abstract idea. Thus, the additional element do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements in the claims other than the abstract idea per se, including an exchange system comprising a memory comprising executable instructions by a hardware processor, demand hashes, hash keys and data layers, such as 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); 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); and storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). (see at least Specification [0017]). Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claim that transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
§ 101 Analysis of the dependent claims.
Regarding the dependent claims, dependent claims 2, 12 and 15 recite limitations that are not technological in nature and merely limits the abstract idea to a particular environment. Claims 3-10, 11, 13, 14 and 16 recite steps that further narrow the abstract idea. No additional elements are disclosed in the dependent claims that were not considered in independent claim 1. Therefore claims 2-16 do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
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.
Claims 1, 2 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Granot et al., U.S. Publication No. 2016/0328520 [hereinafter Granot], in view of Liu, U.S. Publication No. 2005/0256737 [hereinafter Liu], and further in view of Schibuk, U.S. Publication No. 2009/0132813 [hereinafter Schibuk].
Referring to Claim 1, Granot teaches:
An exchange system comprising a memory communicatively coupled to a hardware processor, the memory comprising instructions that when executed by the hardware processor cause the system to (Granot, [0257]; [0259]):
receive a unique demand hash for each of a plurality of consumers, each of the demand hashes comprising at least an encryption of third-party verified user data (Granot, [0122]-[0126]), “System 130 provides interview UI modules, which enable an interview process to be delivered to a client terminal (either via a browser based arrangement or via a proprietary app). This is, in overview, a process whereby various stimuli (for example questions and associated user interface components) are presented to a user, thereby to procure response data from the user… User data 132, which may include historical user data… Interview question data 133, which includes data indicative of questions that are asked based on the logic of module 135… Based on a user's interaction with interview UI modules 131 (i.e. response data), a set of intermediate data is defined. This is passed to response processing modules 137, which process the response data thereby to define data in a form suitable for external transmission via output modules 138”; (Granot, [0137]-[0138]), “provides access to various account administration procedures. For example, this may include modification of personal details, updating preferences… a data validation process 209 whereby inputted details are verified with third party sources”, and
wherein each of the demand hashes is, in part, a verification of the third-party verified user data of the respective consumer by the third-party verification source (Granot, [0137]-[0138]), “provides access to various account administration procedures. For example, this may include modification of personal details, updating preferences… a data validation process 209 whereby inputted details are verified with third party sources”,
wherein the demand hash comprises at least one of a consumer preference, a spending habit, and a past spending history of the consumer (Granot, [0137]), “login process for an existing user…provides access to various account administration procedures. For example, this may include modification of personal details, updating preferences”; (Granot, [0187]), “user interface 400 may be presented in multiple languages, depending on user preferences”; and
establish a match between at least one of the consumers and the bidding time buyer based on the algorithmic analysis (Granot, [0229]-[0232]), “algorithm which queries remote third party appointment calendar based on a user time-based query…An algorithm which is able to monitor, in real time, a remote third party calendar thereby to extract and present substantially live availabilities, and book available times responsive to user commands…appointment booking module 136 of system 130 may be configured to operate with a plurality of different third party booking engines and/or local appointment management applications…System 130 centrally manages data processing modules that facilitate such operation thereby to allow users of system 130 to book appointments via a common interface with a range of consultants that operate different booking software/procedures”.
Granot teaches user historical data (see par. 0123; 0145) and an appointment booking algorithm responsive to user commands (see par. 0229-0232), but Granot does not explicitly teach:
including remote spending data, location data, and time availability for the respective consumer, and a permitted data layer for each of a plurality of different prospective time buyers, and, and
receive a bid from a one of the prospective time buyers directed to at least two of the plurality of consumers; and
algorithmically analyze each of the demand hashes to which the bid is directed and the bid to assess a permitted data layer, if any, to the demand hash for the bidding one of prospective time buyers with respect to each of the consumers, wherein a permitted data laver is decryptable only with a hash key generated for the bidding one of the prospective time buyers.
However Liu teaches:
including remote spending data, location data, and time availability for the respective consumer (Liu, Fig. 8, Item 810; [0050]), “Upcoming appointments 810 are shown chronologically. Each upcoming appointment identifies the date and time, the facility/physician, an address”; (Liu, [0020]; [0024]), “the server 105 may include web page information and documents (e.g., HTML and XML code), applets and application software, which manage subscriber access and use, processes transactions and manage databases for subscriber data”; (Liu, [0043]), “The restaurant module may also include a payment management tool for providing historical transaction information including, for example, receipts and, optionally, expense reports. Such information and materials may be provided automatically or upon request. A receipt will show all salient information relating to a purchase, including the identification of the physician for whom the purchase was made…”; (Liu, [0056]), “The appointment tool enables scheduling, confirming and changing appointments. Available physicians (i.e., physicians within the representative's territory) may be searched according to their drug interests and dates and times of availability. Physicians may set certain preferred dates and times in their preferences. The system will determine the days and times on which a physician already has and appointment”; (Liu, [0025]; [0052]); and
receive a bid from a one of the prospective time buyers directed to at least two of the plurality of consumers (Liu, [0056]), “Representatives desiring to make an appointment may be prioritized according to preferences established by a physician, and/or on a first-come-first-served basis, and/or on some other priority establishing basis”; (Liu, [0032]), “the scheduling module may also include communication tools to greatly facilitate correspondence between subscribers…A physician may direct a meeting request or inquiry to any or all representatives who market a particular type or brand name of drug, without even knowing the representatives' identity. Representatives, physicians and caterers may easily communicate to help ensure that a catered meal meets everyone's expectations…”; (Liu, [0035]), “A new representative may use this tool to introduce himself/herself to subscribing physicians in the relevant locale”; and
algorithmically analyze each of the demand hashes to which the bid is directed and the bid to assess a permitted data layer, if any, to the demand hash for the bidding one of prospective time buyers with respect to each of the consumers (Liu, [0028]-[0029]), “The account module 215 provides subscribers access to their account information and settings… A physician may also enter or update preferences, including an exclusion list of pharmaceutical representatives the physician will or will not see and pharmaceutical products the physician will or will not consider, the size of the physician's staff, meeting preferences (e.g., days, times, frequencies and meal preferences). A caterer may also update delivery information and menus, including prices. A pharmaceutical representative may also update his or her assigned pharmaceutical products and territories. Upon completing any updates, the subscriber may logout 415. Thereafter, the system will use the updated information…The account module may also provide access to third parties or other subscribers, such as pharmaceutical companies, as appropriate. Pharmaceutical companies may be deemed subscribers (or third party non-subscribers) with access to the accounts of its representatives. Thus, pharmaceutical companies may delete and add representatives as appropriate and have super-user access privileges to such accounts”; (Liu, [0025]).
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the user data and appointment booking in Granot to include the consumer data, receiving and analyzing limitations as taught by Liu. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the method of facilitating pre-consultation information management and management of appointment data in Granot (see par. 0001) to efficiently include the results of enabling online scheduling of meetings and setting of preferences (see Liu par. 0001).
Granot teaches user historical data (see par. 0123; 0145), viewing data in a “de-identified” manner, hiding patient identifying information (see par. 0228) and an appointment booking algorithm responsive to user commands (see par. 0229-0232), but Granot does not explicitly teach:
including a permitted data layer for each of a plurality of different prospective time buyers; and
wherein a permitted data laver is decryptable only with a hash key generated for the bidding one of the prospective time buyers.
However Schibuk teaches:
including a permitted data layer for each of a plurality of different prospective time buyers (Schibuk, [0115]), “end-to-end arrangement permitting the rendering of credential services in a fashion that is scalable, dynamic, and individualized”; (Schibuk, [0243]), “. A data service provider P2 receives from a business P1 the encrypted signed container 1840 of FIG. 18A. Receiving here corresponds to process 1514, and occurs between the data flows of FIG. 18A and FIG. 18B. The provider P2 now uses its own private e-key (without using a PKI) to decrypt and retrieve the signed container 1830, much like peeling the outer skin off an onion. However the provider P2 cannot peel the `inner skin`, namely the encryption on the encrypted data 1820 in the signed container, because provider P2 does not possess, and generally cannot obtain, the data consumer P4's private e-key”; (Schibuk, [0228]; [0168])”; and
wherein a permitted data laver is decryptable only with a hash key generated for the bidding one of the prospective time buyers (Schibuk, [0242]), “This data may be any data that the business P1 desires be securely transferred to the data consumer P4. In order to ensure data security, business P1 uses a PKI to retrieve consumer P4's public e-key, and encrypts the data 1810 using well-known techniques so that only a party having P4's private e-key may decrypt it (presumably, this party will be P4). Next, business P1 may wish to attest to the contents of the encrypted data 1820. Thus, business P1 uses its own private s-key (without using PKI) to digitally sign the encrypted data 1820 so that anyone with the data and P1's public s-key may verify the signature. Business P1 places encrypted data 1820, along with the signature 1832, in a signed container 1830. As described above, business P1 may decide to instead create a hash of the encrypted data, sign the hash, and place the data, hash, and signature in a container…”; (Schibuk, [0266]), “the public encryption key is unique to the individual, only that individual's paired private key may be used to decrypt the media content. Thus, only someone in possession of the private key (presumably the individual) can unlock the content. This restriction permits copies of the encrypted content to be made without the chance that the content can be played by others”;
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the autonomous data and appointment booking in Granot to include the permitted data layer limitations as taught by Schibuk. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the method of facilitating pre-consultation information management and management of appointment data in Granot (see par. 0001) to efficiently include the results of improving privacy, by making information purely transactional (see Schibuk par. 0312).
Referring to Claim 2, the combination of Granot in view of Liu in view of Schibuk teaches the system of claim 1. Granot further teaches:
wherein the demand hash comprises demographic information of the consumer (Granot, [0178]), “a user commences the registration process at 241, inputs personal information at 242 (such as same, age, address, and so on)”.
Referring to Claim 5, the combination of Granot in view of Liu in view of Schibuk teaches the system of claim 1. Granot teaches email communication (see par. 0130), but Granot does not explicitly teach:
wherein the consumer is notified of the established match.
However Liu teaches:
wherein the consumer is notified of the established match (Liu, [0032]), “Each time a meeting is scheduled by a subscriber, a communication may be transmitted to the other subscriber, thereby giving the subscriber a meaningful opportunity to confirm or cancel”; (Liu, [0056]), “…An appointment link provides access to an appointment tool. The appointment tool enables scheduling, confirming and changing appointments. Available physicians (i.e., physicians within the representative's territory) may be searched according to their drug interests and dates and times of availability. Physicians may set certain preferred dates and times in their preferences. The system will determine the days and times on which a physician already has and appointment. Representatives desiring to make an appointment may be prioritized according to preferences established by a physician, and/or on a first-come-first-served basis, and/or on some other priority establishing basis. Physicians may have an opportunity to accept or reject a meeting proposed by a representative. Confirmed (i.e., accepted) appointments will appear on the representative's upcoming appointments list. …”.
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the email communication in Granot to include the notifying limitation as taught by Liu. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the method of facilitating pre-consultation information management and management of appointment data in Granot (see par. 0001) to efficiently include the results of facilitating correspondence between subscribers (see Liu par. 0032).
Referring to Claim 6, the combination of Granot in view of Liu in view of Schibuk teaches the system of claim 1. Granot teaches monitoring remote third party calendars to extract and present substantially live availabilities (see par. 0229), but Granot does not teach:
wherein a meeting between the consumer and the time buyer is canceled in response to receiving a rejection of the bid from the consumer.
However Liu teaches:
wherein a meeting between the consumer and the time buyer is canceled in response to receiving a rejection of the bid from the consumer (Liu, [0031]), “…In the event of cancellation, e.g., if a subscriber has indicted an inability or unwillingness to attend, the time slot may be reset as available (or unavailable) as commanded by the canceling subscriber”; (Liu, [0032]), “Each time a meeting is scheduled by a subscriber, a communication may be transmitted to the other subscriber, thereby giving the subscriber a meaningful opportunity to confirm or cancel”.
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the monitored calendar in Granot to include the notifying limitation as taught by Liu. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the method of facilitating pre-consultation information management and management of appointment data in Granot (see par. 0001) to efficiently include the results of facilitating correspondence between subscribers (see Liu par. 0032).
Referring to Claim 7, the combination of Granot in view of Liu in view of Schibuk teaches the system of claim 1. Granot teaches determining communications data associated with a selected consultant (see par. 0035), but Granot does not teach:
wherein a meeting between the consumer and the time buyer is established in response to receiving an acceptance of the bid from the consumer.
However Liu teaches:
wherein a meeting between the consumer and the time buyer is established in response to receiving an acceptance of the bid from the consumer (Liu, [0031]), “… Confirmed time slots are those for which participating subscribers have confirmed their commitment”; (Liu, [0032]), “Each time a meeting is scheduled by a subscriber, a communication may be transmitted to the other subscriber, thereby giving the subscriber a meaningful opportunity to confirm or cancel”; (Liu, [0033]), “The system may send to a subscriber one or more reminders of a scheduled event a determined amount of time (e.g., one or more days) before the scheduled event. The system may also be configured to require a subscriber to confirm continued availability for the scheduled event. The confirmation request may be automated or prompted by another subscriber”; (Liu, [0056]).
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the determined communication data in Granot to include the meeting limitation as taught by Liu. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the method of facilitating pre-consultation information management and management of appointment data in Granot (see par. 0001) to efficiently include the results of preventing overbooking (see Liu par. 0031).
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Granot et al., U.S. Publication No. 2016/0328520 [hereinafter Granot], in view of Liu, U.S. Publication No. 2005/0256737 [hereinafter Liu], in view of Schibuk, U.S. Publication No. 2009/0132813 [hereinafter Schibuk], and further in view of Richards et al., U.S. Publication No. 2015/0128240 [hereinafter Richards].
Referring to Claim 3, the combination of Granot in view of Liu in view of Schibuk teaches the system of claim 1. Granot teaches data validation process (see par. 0138), but Granot does not explicitly teach:
wherein the instructions when executed by the processor further cause the system to: provide a confidence rating of the demand hash based on accuracy of data provided by the consumer in the demand hash according to the third-party verification.
However Richards teaches:
wherein the instructions when executed by the processor further cause the system to:
provide a confidence rating of the demand hash based on accuracy of data provided by the consumer in the demand hash according to the third-party verification (Richards, [0038]), “a client that communicates to the server 160 utilizing encrypted data packets (e.g. via SSL) and may compute a confidence score that provides a measure of confidence about the identity of a user of a computing device 150 based on, for example, communication with third party authenticators/attesters”; (Richards, [0070]), “the user may be assigned a respective confidence score by the system 100. For example, a user may be considered highly "trusted" indicating that there is a high likelihood that the user is who he claims to be. The trust score may be calculated based on the level of trust of each individual confirming the user's identity. For example, the confidence score may be based on an individual's relationship to the user (e.g. friend, family, or colleague), how often an individual communicate with the user, whether an individual is a 1st-degree connection of the user on a social media site, and based on confidence scores calculated for the individuals in regards to other accounts on the system. The confidence score may also include the other factors used in confirming the user's identity, such as data verified by third-party devices and services”.
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the data validation in Granot to include the confidence rating limitations as taught by Richards. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the method of facilitating pre-consultation information management and management of appointment data in Granot (see par. 0001) to efficiently include the results of confirming the user's identity (see Richards, [0013]).
Referring to Claim 4, the combination of Granot in view of Liu in view of Schibuk in view of Richards teaches the system of claim 4. Granot teaches data validation process (see par. 0138) but Granot does not explicitly teach:
wherein the rating is provided by the third party verification source.
However Richards teaches:
wherein the rating is provided by the third party verification source (Richards, [0038]), “a client that communicates to the server 160 utilizing encrypted data packets (e.g. via SSL) and may compute a confidence score that provides a measure of confidence about the identity of a user of a computing device 150 based on, for example, communication with third party authenticators/attesters…”; (Richards, [0070]), “… The confidence score may also include the other factors used in confirming the user's identity, such as data verified by third-party devices and services”; (Richards, [0048]), “In other embodiments using the IVR system… the requestor may not be included in the communication, but a third-party representative or device may be included instead”.
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the validation process in Granot to include the rating limitations as taught by Richards. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the method of facilitating pre-consultation information management and management of appointment data in Granot (see par. 0001) to efficiently include the results of confirming the user's identity (see Richards, [0013]).
Claims 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Granot et al., U.S. Publication No. 2016/0328520 [hereinafter Granot], in view of Liu, U.S. Publication No. 2005/0256737 [hereinafter Liu], in view of Schibuk, U.S. Publication No. 2009/0132813 [hereinafter Schibuk], and further in view of Buxton, U.S. Patent No. 8,095,427 [hereinafter Buxton].
Referring to Claim 8, the combination of Granot in view of Liu in view of Schibuk teaches the system of claim 1. Granot teaches monitoring remote third party calendars to extract and present substantially live availabilities (see par. 0229) and data validation process (see par. 0138), but Granot does not explicitly teach:
wherein the location data of the respective consumer is tracked in real-time.
However Buxton teaches:
wherein the location data of the respective consumer is tracked in real-time (Buxton, [col. 6, ln. 1-14]), “The server is also able to determine whether each seller is permitted to sell certain firearms…as separate filtered lists that are modified for each prospective buyer to only include firearms for sale that can be legally purchased by each buyer based… the legal jurisdictions corresponding to the addresses or current GPS locations associated with the buyer, the seller, and/or any FFL involved in the transaction”; (Buxton, [col. 9, ln. 50-57]), “The rules and GPS module 168 comprises computer-executable instructions for identifying locations of buyers and sellers based on account data and residential or mailing addresses, as well as current and dynamically identified GPS locations”; (Buxton, [col. 13, ln. 52-67]); (col. 19, ln. 64]-[col. 20, ln. 11]).
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the appointment booking and data validation in Granot to include the location data limitation as taught by Buxton. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the method of facilitating pre-consultation information management and management of appointment data in Granot (see par. 0001) to efficiently include the results of ensuring that the transactions will be in compliance with regulations (see Buxton col. 3, ln. 65-67).
Referring to Claim 9, the combination of Granot in view of Liu in view of Schibuk teaches the system of claim 1. Granot teaches monitoring remote third party calendars to extract and present substantially live availabilities (see par. 0229) and data validation process (see par. 0138), but Granot does not explicitly teach:
wherein the bid includes location data of the one of the prospective time buyers.
However Buxton teaches:
wherein the bid includes location data of the one of the prospective time buyers (Buxton, [col. 20, ln. 17-21]), “a buyer can be restricted from bidding on or viewing firearms that are not allowed to be shipped to the buyer's jurisdiction based on the buyer's residence or current GPS location”; (Buxton, [col. 6, ln. 1-14]), “The server is also able to determine whether each seller is permitted to sell certain firearms…as separate filtered lists that are modified for each prospective buyer to only include firearms for sale that can be legally purchased by each buyer based… the legal jurisdictions corresponding to the addresses or current GPS locations associated with the buyer, the seller, and/or any FFL involved in the transaction”; (Buxton, [col. 9, ln. 50-57]), “The rules and GPS module 168 comprises computer-executable instructions for identifying locations of buyers and sellers based on account data and residential or mailing addresses, as well as current and dynamically identified GPS locations”; (Buxton, [col. 13, ln. 52-67]); (col. 19, ln. 64]-[col. 20, ln. 11]).
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the appointment booking and data validation in Granot to include the location data limitation as taught by Buxton. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the method of facilitating pre-consultation information management and management of appointment data in Granot (see par. 0001) to efficiently include the results of ensuring that the transactions will be in compliance with regulations (see Buxton col. 3, ln. 65-67).
Referring to Claim 10, the combination of Granot in view of Liu in view of Schibuk in view of Buxton teaches the system of claim 9. Granot teaches monitoring remote third party calendars to extract and present substantially live availabilities (see par. 0229) and data validation process (see par. 0138), but Granot does not explicitly teach:
wherein the location data of the one of the prospective time buyers is tracked in real-time.
However Buxton teaches:
wherein the location data of the one of the prospective time buyers is tracked in real-time (Buxton, [col. 6, ln. 1-14]), “The server is also able to determine whether each seller is permitted to sell certain firearms…as separate filtered lists that are modified for each prospective buyer to only include firearms for sale that can be legally purchased by each buyer based… the legal jurisdictions corresponding to the addresses or current GPS locations associated with the buyer, the seller, and/or any FFL involved in the transaction”; (Buxton, [col. 9, ln. 50-57]), “The rules and GPS module 168 comprises computer-executable instructions for identifying locations of buyers and sellers based on account data and residential or mailing addresses, as well as current and dynamically identified GPS locations”; (Buxton, [col. 13, ln. 52-67]); (col. 19, ln. 64]-[col. 20, ln. 11]).
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the appointment booking and data validation in Granot to include the location data limitation as taught by Buxton. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the method of facilitating pre-consultation information management and management of appointment data in Granot (see par. 0001) to efficiently include the results of ensuring that the transactions will be in compliance with regulations (see Buxton col. 3, ln. 65-67).
Referring to Claim 11, the combination of Granot in view of Liu in view of Schibuk teaches the system of claim 9. Granot teaches monitoring remote third party calendars to extract and present substantially live availabilities (see par. 0229) and data validation process (see par. 0138), but Granot does not explicitly teach:
wherein the match between at least one of the consumers and the bidding time buyer is based on location proximity of the at least one of the consumers and the bidding time buyer.
However Buxton teaches:
wherein the match between at least one of the consumers and the bidding time buyer is based on location proximity of the at least one of the consumers and the bidding time buyer (Buxton, [col. 14, ln. 12-17]), “This transaction ticket information can be provided (act 242) to any appropriate FFL to identify the transaction and firearm. In most instances, the appropriate FFL will be an FFL that is geographically proximate the seller location and that has been identified by the seller in response to the seller accessing FFL data provided by the server”; (Buxton, [col. 14, ln. 60-66]), “a seller and buyer might each access FFL data (acts 244 and 248) and select (either automatically or manually) different FFLs that are the closest in proximity to the seller and buyer, respectively, or that satisfy other FFL criteria (e.g., FFLs that are able to provide special services for inspecting, testing, modifying, or storing the firearm)”.
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the appointment booking and data validation in Granot to include the location proximity limitation as taught by Buxton. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the method of facilitating pre-consultation information management and management of appointment data in Granot (see par. 0001) to efficiently include the results of adding convenience to the user shopping experience (see Buxton col. 23, ln. 33-34).
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Granot et al., U.S. Publication No. 2016/0328520 [hereinafter Granot], in view of Liu, U.S. Publication No. 2005/0256737 [hereinafter Liu], in view of Schibuk, U.S. Publication No. 2009/0132813 [hereinafter Schibuk], and further in view of Utter, II, U.S. Publication No. 2014/0129242 [hereinafter Utter]
Referring to Claim 12, the combination of Granot in view of Liu in view of Schibuk teaches the system of claim 1. Granot teaches a pre-consultation interview obtains, from the user, various aspects of personal information relevant to a proposed consultation (and relevant to the user generally). This information is then transformed into form appropriate for a consultant (see par. 0114), but Granot does not explicitly teach:
wherein the demand hash comprises biometric data of the consumer.
However Utter teaches:
wherein the demand hash comprises biometric data of the consumer (Utter, [0037]), “wearable personal data or data capture devices (e.g., data-capable devices) that are worn by a user around a wrist, ankle, arm, ear, or other appendage, or attached to the body or affixed to clothing. One or more facilities, sensing elements, or sensors, both active and passive, may be implemented as part of bands 104-112 in order to capture various types of data from different sources. Temperature, environmental, temporal, motion, electronic, electrical, chemical, or other types of sensors (including those described below in connection with FIG. 3) may be used in order to gather varying amounts of data….Bands 104-112 may also be wearable, personal, non-intrusive, lightweight devices that are configured to gather large amounts of personally relevant data that can be used to improve user health, fitness levels, medical conditions, athletic performance, sleeping physiology, and physiological conditions, or used as a sensory-based user interface ("UI") to signal social-related notifications specifying the state of the user through vibration, heat, lights or other sensory based notifications”; (Utter, [0058]).
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the personal information in Granot to include the biometric data limitation as taught by Utter. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the method of facilitating pre-consultation information management and management of appointment data in Granot (see par. 0001) to efficiently include the results of using the data to provide services such as targeted advertisements (see Utter par. 0058).
29. Referring to Claim 13, the combination of Granot in view of Liu in view of Schibuk in view of Buxton teaches the system of claim 12. Granot teaches monitoring remote third party calendars to extract and present substantially live availabilities (see par. 0229) and data validation process (see par. 0138), but Granot does not explicitly teach:
wherein the match between at least one of the consumers and the bidding time buyer is based on biometric data of the consumer.
However Utter teaches:
wherein the match between at least one of the consumers and the bidding time buyer is based on biometric data of the consumer (Utter, [0096]), “monitor, track and generate recommendations for health and wellness based on other acquired parameters, including those related to the environment, such as location, and social interactions, including proximity to others”; (Utter, [0113]), “ A social parameter includes data representing a social interaction between a user and another person via any form of communication, such as face-to-face, phone, email, text, amounts of time spent with a person, and the like. Social parameters can be archived in archived data files 1713 so that trends can be established to determine, for example, the people with which a user tends to participate in positive activities (i.e., in terms of achieving a target score). This information can be used to generate recommendations to induce a user toward achieving a target score. Any other characteristics of social interactions, including proximity to other persons (or the proximities of wearable devices relative to each other) and data derived from social networking web sites and other databases are also included in social parameters 1716”.
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the personal information in Granot to include the biometric data limitation as taught by Utter. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the method of facilitating pre-consultation information management and management of appointment data in Granot (see par. 0001) to efficiently include the results of using the data to provide services such as targeted advertisements (see Utter par. 0058).
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Granot et al., U.S. Publication No. 2016/0328520 [hereinafter Granot], in view of Liu, U.S. Publication No. 2005/0256737 [hereinafter Liu], in view of Schibuk, U.S. Publication No. 2009/0132813 [hereinafter Schibuk], and further in view of Joa et al., U.S. Publication No. 2014/0164089 [hereinafter Joa].
Referring to Claim 14 the combination of Granot in view of Liu in view of Schibuk in view of Buxton teaches the system of claim 1. Granot teaches allowing consultants to register to use system 130, update their details/preferences (see par. 0134; 0207) and determining communications data associated with a selected consultant (see par. 0035), but Granot does not explicitly teach:
wherein the bid from a one of the prospective time buyers comprises one or more meeting incentives.
However Joa teaches:
wherein the bid from a one of the prospective time buyers comprises one or more meeting incentives (Joa, [0066]), “efficient mechanism for sellers to identify and market to potential customers. Certain embodiments may also allow sellers to more effectively market their products or services and offer promotions by allowing sellers to target their promotions to more receptive customers and provide promotions that are more closely tailored to the customers' interests”; (Joa, [0016]), “a merchant may communicate information to reward module 100 related to various promotional offers or targeted customer types. When reward module 100 receives the information indicating the one or more sellers from which the user may make a purchase, as described above, reward module 100 may determine a promotion response based on the reward parameters, the information associated with the seller promotion, and, optionally, the user preferences”; (Joa, [0049]), “Seller preferences 154 include information indicating a seller's preferences with respect to rewards or promotions. These preferences include one or more targeted customers, one or more types of targeted customers, conditions or rules for notifying the seller of a nearby customer, or any other preferences associated with offering promotions or other marketing”; (Joa, [0060]).
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the consultant preferences and communication data in Granot to include the incentives limitation as taught by Joa. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the method of facilitating pre-consultation information management and management of appointment data in Granot (see par. 0001) to efficiently include the results of facilitating the provision of valuable information about potential customers' likely responsiveness to various promotions, allowing sellers to make more informed marketing decision (see Joa par. 0016).
Referring to Claim 15, the combination of Granot in view of Liu in view of Schibuk in view of Buxton teaches the system of claim 14. Granot teaches allowing consultants to register to use system 130, update their details/preferences (see par. 0134; 0207) and determining communications data associated with a selected consultant (see par. 0035), but Granot does not explicitly teach:
wherein the one or more meeting incentives comprise at least one selected from the group consisting of transportation incentive, monetary incentive, consumables incentive, donation incentive, charity incentive, gift incentive, and admissions incentive.
However Joa teaches:
wherein the one or more meeting incentives comprise at least one selected from the group consisting of transportation incentive, monetary incentive, consumables incentive, donation incentive, charity incentive, gift incentive, and admissions incentive (Joa, [0029]), “reward optimization logic 180 evaluates reward parameters, location information, user preferences, seller information, promotion information, transaction history, and/or any other suitable information in order to select a user account for use in a current or prospective payment. For example, reward optimization logic 180 may analyze the reward parameters, each of which is associated with a user account (such as, for example, a reward credit card, frequent flyer account, gas card, gift card, membership account, flex spending account, or any other account associated with discounts, bonuses, or other rewards), user preferences (such as a preference for cash back or for airline miles), seller information (such as sellers located near the user, promotions available from such sellers, a particular seller selected by the user, a seller website visited by the user, or other seller information), and/or other information (such as the user's closeness to receiving a reward threshold for a particular user account, the timing of a particular reward, or other suitable information for facilitating the selection of an optimal user account) in order to select a user account”; (Joa, [0029]), “the rewards themselves may be non-monetary. For example, sellers may offer virtual badges or other non-monetary rewards for certain behavior by a user. In some embodiments, one or more of these non-monetary rewards may be converted into or redeemed for another reward (such as points, cash, airline miles, gifts, or any other type of reward). Incorporating non-monetary rewards into its analysis may enable reward module 100 to improve its reward suggestions by identifying additional, non-monetary rewards that users may find valuable”.
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the consultant preferences and communication data in Granot to include the incentives limitation as taught by Joa. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the method of facilitating pre-consultation information management and management of appointment data in Granot (see par. 0001) to efficiently include the results of facilitating the provision of valuable information about potential customers' likely responsiveness to various promotions, allowing sellers to make more informed marketing decision (see Joa par. 0016).
Referring to Claim 16, the combination of Granot in view of Liu in view of Schibuk in view of Buxton teaches the system of claim 14. Granot teaches allowing consultants to register to use system 130, update their details/preferences (see par. 0134; 0207) and determining communications data associated with a selected consultant (see par. 0035), but Granot does not explicitly teach:
wherein the one or more meeting incentives are monitored by a monitoring entity and placed under an approval process prior to the bid received by at least two of the plurality of consumers.
However Joa teaches:
wherein the one or more meeting incentives are monitored by a monitoring entity and placed under an approval process prior to the bid received by at least two of the plurality of consumers (Joa, [0016]), “Reward module 100 also facilitates promotional offers. Having received and stored the reward parameters and, optionally, the user preferences, reward module 100 may also receive and store information associated with seller promotions. For example, a merchant may communicate information to reward module 100 related to various promotional offers or targeted customer types. When reward module 100 receives the information indicating the one or more sellers from which the user may make a purchase, as described above, reward module 100 may determine a promotion response based on the reward parameters, the information associated with the seller promotion, and, optionally, the user preferences”; (Joa, [0018]), “reward parameters and user preferences may also enable reward module 100 to automatically determine a promotion response for a seller that is seeking to select a promotion for a particular user”; (Joa, [0049]).
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the consultant preferences and communication data in Granot to include the incentives limitation as taught by Joa. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the method of facilitating pre-consultation information management and management of appointment data in Granot (see par. 0001) to efficiently include the results of facilitating the provision of valuable information about potential customers' likely responsiveness to various promotions, allowing sellers to make more informed marketing decision (see Joa par. 0016).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Knapp et al. (US 20110173126 A1) – A real-time-bidding process that includes security mechanisms that limits access to various aspects of the bidding process including communications between bidders, the user browser, and the auctioneer, and the content of bids received and utilized by the user browser.
Rousso et al. (US 20100057556 A1) – The present invention is directed generally to an apparatuses, methods, and systems of commerce, and more particularly, to apparatuses, methods and systems to identify aggregate and generate qualified sales and marketing leads for distribution via an online bidding system.
Breakey (US 20160267541 A1) – An experience-centric merchandising platform is accessible and operable by merchants and consumers via the web and various mobile platforms, empowering merchants and consumers to self-direct and self-manage marketing campaigns and individual shopping experiences. A merchandising platform includes a marketing message generation module, a cross marketing module, a transaction fee processing module, a voucher generation module, and an on-demand spot marketing module.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Crystol Stewart whose telephone number is (571)272-1691. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Patty Munson can be reached on (571)270-5396. 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.
/CRYSTOL STEWART/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624