DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The Response filed 10/29/2025 has been acknowledged. Claims 1-3, 6, 8, 10-12, 17 are amended. Claims 9, 18 are cancelled. Claims 1-8, 10-17 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 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 1-8, 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites the steps of receiving a request, collecting explicit and latent information, generating outcome score for service providers, comparing a service provider against stored scores of other providers currently employed by a service company to calculate a comparative outcome score percentage value. The invention further utilizes the percentage value to identify attributes correlated to growth/improvement and assigns a potential score to the service provider. The invention then provide a manager with service providers based on the comparative percentage and potential score.
The limitation of receiving request, collecting information, generating/comparing scores, identifying service providers, and reporting the service providers, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “processor” and “software client”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “processor” and “software client” language, “receiving”, “collecting”, and “generating” in the context of this claim encompasses a person hearing a request for service providers and generating scores for available provider based on the request. Similarly, the limitation of comparing the score to score of other currently employed providers to calculate a outcome score percentage value, in the context of the claim but for the “processor” and “software client” language, can be performed by the person comparing numeric values against existing information/records, performing calculations, and providing the outcome of the calculation. Furthermore, the limitations of comparing current providers with the outcome score percentage value and potential scores, identifying candidate providers who meet/exceed a value/score threshold, and providing/reporting the candidate provider can be performed by the person mentally comparing numeric score values of current and candidate providers against the previously calculated comparative outcome score percentage value, and further reporting/stating the information to the appropriate person. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Still furthermore, invention is similar to In re Maucorp, as the invention is directed towards a particular algorithm for providing optimal information. As currently claimed, the software client as claimed is comprised of a machine learning algorithm, which performs the method steps. As discussed by In re Maucorp and Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699, algorithms, including algorithms used in a computer environment, are still directed towards an abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional element of using the processor, software client, and machine learning to perform the steps. The processor is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of executing software including instructions to receive information, calculate information, comparing information, identifying information, and outputting information) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Still furthermore, although the claims do recite “machine learning algorithm”, this is merely a title for the algorithm. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
The dependent claims are further directed towards the judicial exception without significantly more. The dependent claims provide limitations on source of information/requests (such as claims 2, 4, 7), additional abstract calculations (such as claim 3), how the calculations are performed (such as claims 5-6, 8). These are still directed towards the judicial exception as these further define the abstract elements such as further defining the source of information, and particular abstract calculations or defining particular calculations. Furthermore, although the claim recites utilizing machine language learning for processing information, this is still merely application of a particular algorithm using generic computer components. They are not significantly more as they do not further integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and the additional element amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The dependent claims is not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to the Applicant’s arguments as directed towards the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant asserts the invention, when characterized as a whole is not directed towards a judicial exception. The Examiner notes that although the claims as amended recite the computer client to comprise a machine learning algorithm, as discussed above and in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), the recitation of algorithms, including those performed by a computer can still be directed towards a judicial exception. Still furthermore, as discussed in the July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility, specifically example 47 claim 2, the recitation of utilizing machine learning algorithms is still directed towards a judicial exception. The Applicant further asserts the claimed invention is integrated into a practical application as the invention is a new and unique computer process to perform analysis, ranking, and discovery of unexpected relevant match elements. The Examiner notes as currently claimed, the invention is similar to Electric Power Group in that the claimed invention is directed towards the collection, analysis, and output of results using a particular algorithm. Furthermore, although the invention does recite utilizing machine learning, this is recited at a high level describing algorithms similar to example 47 claim 2 of the July 2024 update. As such, the Examiner asserts the claimed invention is directed towards a judicial exception without significantly more and the rejection has been maintained.
Non-Obvious Subject Matter
The independent claims recite the steps of receiving request for a service provider and generating outcome scores for service providers in response to the request. The invention further recites the steps of comparing the service provider outcome scores with the outcome scores of current providers of a service company, and further calculating and providing a comparative outcome score percentage value. The invention further determines a growth/potential score. The invention then identifies providers which meet/exceed both outcome score percentage values and growth/potential scores. The invention then reports the candidate providers to a manager of the service company for the manager to issue offer of employment to the candidate provider.
The Examiner notes the following reference(s):
Karam et al. (US 20200185089 A1), which talks about matching patient with providers including utilizing machine learning and scoring.
Zaidi et al. (US 20190333613 A1), which talks about collecting and utilizing feedback information for matching service providers.
Fahimi (US 20060047529 A1), which talks about facilitating communications with consultants including the concept of scoring individual providers of a business practice.
Bai (CN 111933306 A), which talks medical consultation including scoring of medical providers.
Shapero et al. (US 20140214943 A1), which talks about notifications based on social network activity and profile triggers including determining relationships and scoring for current and past employees.
Akkiraju et al. (US 20170061497 A1), which talks about inferring brand personality including utilizing existing employee information to determine particular skill sets.
Portnoy et al. (US 20190066011 A1), which talks about workforce management including score determination for existing employees.
Mondore et al. (WO 2021003302 A1), which talks about candidate matching including implementing outcome scores and accounting for existing employees.
Upon further search and consideration, the Examiner notes the following reference(s):
Hearon et al. (WO 2019103944 A1), which talks about automatic identification of high performing people including utilizing information collected from current employees.
Although these references teach/suggest certain concepts and elements of the claimed invention including scoring of candidates and accounting for existing employees, these references fail to teach/suggest the comparing of candidate scores and scores of existing employees and determining a comparative outcome score percentage. Upon further search and consideration, no reference(s) teach/suggest the concept of comparing candidate scores with existing employees and determining comparative outcome score percentages. As such, the Examiner has determined the invention to be non-obvious over the prior art.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VINCENT M CAO whose telephone number is (571)270-5598. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11-7.
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, ILANA SPAR can be reached at (571) 270-7537. 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.
/VINCENT M CAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622
Prosecution Insights