Detailed Action
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Action is in reply to the Application filed on 07/16/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed 4/17/2025 was received and has been considered.
Priority
Applicant’s claim of priority to Provisional Applications 62413060 & 62433690, and Non-provisional Applications 15738972, 17248734, & 17808460 is acknowledged. Each of these applications fails to provide support for at least the steps of enabling, by the operation module, completion of the request by the selected ranked provider, the completion of the request comprising: requesting, by the operation module, a reservation for the service location from the selected ranked provider or the user; granting the reservation based on an availability of the service location; and updating by the operation module and displaying on the user interface an updated availability of the service location; and the method further comprising, by a home management system of the service location, interacting with the selected ranked provider and the server computing device and allowing access to the service location of the user for the selected provider, to facilitate completion of the request, wherein the access to the service location is allowed by providing an access code valid for the time frame to the selected ranked provider.
Therefore, the claims are given an effective filing date of 7/16/2024.
Claim Rejection - 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
First, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a statutory category of invention. In the instant case, claims 1-10 are directed to a process, claims 11-20 are directed to a machine. Therefore, claims 1-20 are directed to statutory subject matter under Step 1 as described in MPEP 2106 (Step 1: YES).
The claims are then analyzed to determine whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception. In determining whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception (Prong One of Step 2A), 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 (Prong Two of Step 2A).
Claims 1 and 11 recite at least the following limitations that are believed to recite an abstract idea:
receiving, from a user, a request for service at a flexible service location within or proximal to the physical community or neighborhood, the request including a time frame;
providing, in accordance with the request, ranked providers for the service located within or proximal to the physical community or neighborhood capable of completing the request;
displaying, for selection by the user, the ranked providers;
receiving, a selected ranked provider from the ranked providers to complete the request;
enabling, completion of the request by the selected ranked provider, the completion of the request comprising:
requesting a reservation for the service location from the selected ranked provider or the user;
granting the reservation based on an availability of the service location; and
updating and displaying an updated availability of the service location; and
interacting with the selected ranked provider and allowing access to the service location of the user for the selected provider, to facilitate completion of the request, wherein the access to the service location is allowed by providing an access code valid for the time frame to the selected ranked provider.
The above limitations recite the concept of service provider search & reservations. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106, in that they recite commercial interactions, e.g. sales activities/behaviors, and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, e.g., following rules or instructions. Accordingly, under Prong One of Step 2A, claims 1-20 recite an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Prong Two of Step 2A is the next step in the eligibility analyses and looks at whether the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. This requires an additional element or combination of additional elements in the claims to apply, rely on, or user the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
In this instance, the claims recite the additional elements of:
the method being computer-implemented
e-commerce
a user interface
a server computing device comprising an operation module including a processor
a home management system
A system comprising a server computing device and a home management system, the server computing device being in communication with one or more user devices via a network and being configured to interact with the home management system, the server computing device comprising an operation module including a processor and a computer program product storing instructions that when executed by the processor, cause the server computing device perform steps
However, these elements do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort to monopolize the exception.
In addition, the recitations are recited at a high level of generality and also do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort to monopolize the exception.
The dependent claims also fail to recite elements which amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort to monopolize the exception. For example, claims 2 are directed to the abstract idea itself and do not amount to an integration according to any one of the considerations above. As for claims 3-5, 7-8, 13-15, 17-18, these claims are similar to the independent claims except that they recite the further additional elements of a database, geolocate IP address and geospatial data, the server computing device being cloud based. These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and also do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort to monopolize the exception. Therefore, the dependent claims do not create an integration for the same reasons.
Step 2B is the next step in the eligibility analyses and evaluates whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (i.e., “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. According to Office procedure, revised Step 2A overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be re-evaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same.
In Step 2A, several additional elements were identified as additional limitations:
the method being computer-implemented
e-commerce
a user interface
a server computing device comprising an operation module including a processor
a home management system
A system comprising a server computing device and a home management system, the server computing device being in communication with one or more user devices via a network and being configured to interact with the home management system, the server computing device comprising an operation module including a processor and a computer program product storing instructions that when executed by the processor, cause the server computing device perform steps
These additional limitations, including the limitations in the dependent claims, do not amount to an inventive concept because they were already analyzed under Step 2A and did not amount to a practical application of the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims lack one or more limitations which amount to an inventive concept in the claims.
For these reasons, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Interpretation
With reference to [0122] of Applicant’s Specification, a “flexible service location” is understood to be a specific location that is “flexible to cater to…various needs” rather than having “a room designated for each function”.
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Rejection – 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-
obviousness.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar (US 20200219163 A1), in view of Stevenot (US 20210174621 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Kumar discloses a real-time (Kumar: immediate [0113]) computer implemented method of an in-residence e-commerce service for a physical community or neighborhood, the method comprising:
receiving, from a user interface operated by a user, by a server computing device comprising an operation module including a processor (Kumar: server [0191]), a request for service at a flexible service location [address] within or proximal to the physical community or neighborhood [distance], the request including a time frame [time range; date] (Kumar: “a service request 400 entry screen for a graphical user interface. The service request 400 can include drop down entry boxes for a customer to enter information associated with a service request 400. ” [0135] – “a customer can enter the date the service is needed in the future. … a customer can enter the address where the service is needed. …a customer can enter the preferred radial distance from the address of service to run the search for service providers. … service providers operating within that 3 mile radius …a customer can enter a category of service” [0137-0141] – “a geographic location of a home or other property at which work is to be performed” Claim 31 – See Figure 4A);
providing, by the operation module, in accordance with the request, ranked providers for the service located within or proximal to the physical community or neighborhood capable of completing the request (Kumar: “The listing 440 can include service providers that match the customer's request within a certain threshold determined by the service provider matching system.” [0145] – “the listing 440 of matched service providers can include a subset of the total matched service providers determined by the service provider matching system. In some embodiments, the service provider matching system can determine a ranking or order based on a matching score. … a customer can filter or sort the view based on any relevant factor. For example, a customer can sort by rating or distance to the service address.” [0146] – “service providers having a business address within the 3 mile radius would be searched. …service providers operating within that 3 mile radius, but that may have a business address outside of the 3 mile radius may also be included in the search” [0139]);
displaying, on the user interface, for selection by the user, the ranked providers (Kumar: “FIG. 4B illustrates a listing 440 of matched service providers based on the service request 400 submitted in FIG. 4A. The listing 440 can include service providers that match the customer's request within a certain threshold determined by the service provider matching system.” [0145] – “a customer can filter or sort the view based on any relevant factor. For example, a customer can sort by rating or distance to the service address.” [0146] – See Figure 4B);
receiving, by the operation module, from the user interface, a selected ranked provider from the ranked providers to complete the request (Kumar: “the customer associated with the customer system 140 can select a service provider from the transmitted list … Once selected, information can be transmitted to the service provider matching system 102.” [0073]);
enabling, by the operation module, completion of the request by the selected ranked provider, the completion of the request comprising:
requesting, by the operation module, a reservation for the service location from the selected ranked provider or the user (Kumar: “the service providers can do one or more of: …offering a time to do the service” [0111] - “if a customer requests a service that meets the service provider's criteria, the service can be automatically booked without any interactions from the service provider. In some embodiments, the service provider can be informed of the booked appointment” [0113]);
granting the reservation based on an availability of the service location[customer’s schedule/time range] (Kumar: “if a customer requests a service that meets the service provider's criteria, the service can be automatically booked without any interactions from the service provider. In some embodiments, the service provider can be informed of the booked appointment” [0113] – “if a customer requests a 2-hour project, the provider matching engine 101 and/or the service provider matching system 102 can match a customer to a service provider at a recommended time that fits both the customer's and service provider's schedule based on their availability.” [0061] – “a customer can enter a time range when the requested service would be needed” [0141] – “the listing 440 can include service providers that match the customer's request” [0145]); and
updating by the operation module and displaying on the user interface an updated availability of the service location (Kumar: “the service provider matching system 102 (or other systems) can access calendar programs or services (for example, through APIs) associated with the customer or service provider and update the corresponding calendar programs or services with the confirmed booking appointment.” [0098] – “Once the booking is confirmed, the service provider matching system 102 can generate one or more proposed contracts… the contracts or contract terms can be based on … search criteria provided by the customer …transmit the contracts or contract terms to the customer system ” [0099-0100] – See also [0163]).
While Kumar teaches that the service provider is a “selected ranked prover” [0146], [0073], it does not specifically teach that the method further comprising, by a home management system of the service location, interacting with the provider and the server computing device and allowing access to the service location of the user for the selected provider, to facilitate completion of the request, wherein the access to the service location is allowed by providing an access code valid for the time frame to the provider.
However, Stevenot teaches delivery service management systems (Stevenot: Abstract), including
the method further comprising, by a home management system of the service location, interacting with the provider and the server computing device and allowing access to the service location of the user for the selected provider, to facilitate completion of the request, wherein the access to the service location is allowed by providing an access code valid for the time frame to the provider (Stevenot: “The lockbox service can operate with multiple different users, delivery providers, and e-commerce services. … the deliverer 145 may receive information from the lockbox remote service 105, such as access codes to access and drop off parcels at the lockbox 135” [0023-0025] – “customize the access code's usage, such as whether the access code … can be used for a given time period. … a time range during the day so that the lockbox 135 is used when the user is not home.” [0027] – “ generate different access codes for multiple respective users or deliverers 145. This enables the user/owner to have multiple different deliveries coming within a given time frame and further enables the user to know who accessed the lockbox” [0033] – “responsive to receiving one or more access code inputs, the access device may unlock/open a garage door” [0041] – “the access code is a one-time use code that expires after use” [0057]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to combine these references because the results would be predictable. Specifically, Kumar would continue to teach receiving, by the operation module, from the user interface, a selected ranked provider from the ranked providers to complete the request & updating by the operation module and displaying on the user interface an updated availability of the service location, except that now it would also teach the method further comprising, by a home management system of the service location, interacting with the provider and the server computing device and allowing access to the service location of the user for the selected provider, to facilitate completion of the request, wherein the access to the service location is allowed by providing an access code valid for the time frame to the provider, according to the teachings of Stevenot. This is a predictable result of the combination.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to combine these references because it would result in an improved ability to control security of service provider/package deliverer activity (Stevenot: [0003]).
Regarding Claim 2, Kumar/Stevenot teach the method of claim 1. Kumar does not teach providing a new access code when the access code is invalid after expiry of the time frame, but Stevenot teaches providing a new access code when the access code is invalid after expiry of the time frame (Stevenot: “In step 1060, the access code for the deliverer expires. In step 1065, an authorized owner inputs an alternative access code to retrieve the delivered package. ” [0043] – “customize the access code's usage, such as whether the access code … can be used for a given time period. … a time range during the day so that the lockbox 135 is used when the user is not home.” [0027] – “ generate different access codes for multiple respective users or deliverers 145. This enables the user/owner to have multiple different deliveries coming within a given time frame and further enables the user to know who accessed the lockbox” [0033] – “In step 1060, the access code for the deliverer expires. In step 1065, an authorized owner inputs an alternative access code to retrieve the delivered package. ” [0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Stevenot with Kumar for the reasons identified above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding Claim 3, Kumar/Stevenot teach the method of claim 1, further comprising storing information relating to the completed request within a database (Kumar: “the matching database 124 can store information related to the display generation engine 104, the financing engine 106, the contract generation engine 108, the bidding engine 110, the crime monitoring engine 112, any data in the data store 114, ” [0059] – “Customer feedback is received at step 516 including timeliness of the services.” [0164] – “the financing engine 106 can … holding the processed payment in an escrow account, and distributing the payment to the service provider upon approval by the customer that the service has been satisfactorily completed.” [0039] – See also [0055-0056]).
Regarding Claim 4, Kumar/Stevenot teach the method of claim 3, further comprising analyzing the information related to the completed request for use in further ranking the selected ranked provider (Kumar: “ if a service provider is at a particular location 132 and is completing a project, then availability 134 can be based on the particular location 132.” [0084] – “Customer feedback is received at step 516 including timeliness of the services.” [0164] – “the service provider matching system can determine a ranking or order based on a matching score. The matching score can be a probabilistic value that indicates the certainty of a match, or the likelihood that the match will be selected by the customer that ran the corresponding search. The matching score can also be based on qualities of the service providers. For example, a higher score may be applied to service providers with higher ratings (for example, ratings 450A, 450B, and 450C), or to service providers who are closer in distance (for example, 452) to the address where the work is requested to be performed. ” [0146] – “improve matching over time based on the various inputs and criteria that is used for the matching” [0061]).
Regarding Claim 5, Kumar/Stevenot teach the method of claim 3, wherein the database further comprises information regarding past user selections (Kumar: “matching database 124 can store any data, preferences, or information that passes through the service provider matching engine ” [0078] – “machine learning algorithms or AI to generate matching models that are executed by the service provider matching engine …The machine learning algorithms can be configured to adaptively develop and update the models over time based on new input received by the machine learning component 120. For example, the models can be regenerated on a periodic basis as new information related to customers, service providers, completed or incomplete services rendered, payments made or not made, or the like is available to help keep the predictions in the model more accurate as the information evolves over time. ” [0070-0071]).
Regarding Claim 6, Kumar/Stevenot teach the method of claim 1. Kumar does not teach that the access is overridable, but Stevenot teaches that the access is overridable (Stevenot: “the user may select a particular day or days on which the access code can be used or a time range during the day so that the lockbox 135 is used when the user is not home. Any customizations of the access codes may be transmitted to the lockbox remote service, which in turn transmits the updated information to the deliverer 145 or other user seeking access to the lockbox.” [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Stevenot with Kumar for the reasons identified above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding Claim 7, Kumar/Stevenot teach the method of claim 1, wherein geolocate IP address and geospatial data are utilized to provide access to the service location for the selected ranked provider (Kumar: “the location 132 can be determined through the use of data related to one or more sensors in the service provider system(s) 130, which can include one or more of the following: GPS, WiFi, Bluetooth, barometer, or the like. In some embodiments, the location 132 can be determined by analyzing data related to the service provider system's 130 IP address.” [0082] – “the matching can be based on custom user preferences, custom service provider preferences, customer system 140 location, service provider system 130 location,” [0069]).
Regarding Claim 8, Kumar/Stevenot teach the method of claim 1, wherein the server computing device is cloud based (Kumar: “Data Store: Any computer readable storage medium …data store is a hosted storage environment that includes a collection of physical data storage devices that may be remotely accessible and may be rapidly provisioned as needed (commonly referred to as “cloud” storage).” [0026] – “computer readable program instructions may be stored, …on a memory device (e.g., a computer readable storage medium) … on the remote computer or server. ” [0176]).
Regarding Claim 9, Kumar/Stevenot teach the method of claim 1 further comprising: communicating alternative providers capable of completing the request for service in response to receiving a response indicative of a refusal to the request for service from the selected ranked provider (Stevenot: “the service provider systems 130 contacted can accept the work, … reject the work,” [0093] – “if a service provider has been selected but has gotten behind on other work, the system automatically reevaluates the expected arrival and start of work, and offers alternate service providers. ” [0225] – “providing alternative contractors to a customer if the contractor location is not consistent with the contractor satisfying service timeliness” [0230] – “the service provider … can cancel the booked service. … once the booking is cancelled, then contract can be reassigned to the next available and lowest cost service provider, or a new bid process can be started” [0122])
Regarding Claim 10, Kumar/Stevenot teach the method of claim 1, wherein the service includes a service of delivery of a product (Kumar: “he service providers described herein may include providers of any or all of the following example services …pet-food and supplies home delivery services …diaper delivery services; dry-cleaning pickup & delivery services” [0201-0203]).
Regarding Claim 11, Kumar discloses system comprising a server computing device the server computing device being in communication with one or more user devices via a network and the server computing device comprising an operation module including a processor and a computer program product storing instructions (Kumar: [0191], [0176]) that when executed by the processor, cause the server computing device to:
receive, from a user interface on a user device of the one or more user devices, a request for service at a service location [address] within or proximal to the physical community or neighborhood [distance], the request including a time frame [time range; date] (Kumar: “a service request 400 entry screen for a graphical user interface. The service request 400 can include drop down entry boxes for a customer to enter information associated with a service request 400. ” [0135] – “a customer can enter the date the service is needed in the future. … a customer can enter the address where the service is needed. …a customer can enter the preferred radial distance from the address of service to run the search for service providers. … service providers operating within that 3 mile radius …a customer can enter a category of service” [0137-0141] – “a geographic location of a home or other property at which work is to be performed” Claim 31 – See Figure 4A);
provide, via the operation module, ranked providers for the service, the ranked providers located within or proximal to the physical community or neighborhood and capable of completing the request (Kumar: “The listing 440 can include service providers that match the customer's request within a certain threshold determined by the service provider matching system.” [0145] – “the listing 440 of matched service providers can include a subset of the total matched service providers determined by the service provider matching system. In some embodiments, the service provider matching system can determine a ranking or order based on a matching score. … a customer can filter or sort the view based on any relevant factor. For example, a customer can sort by rating or distance to the service address.” [0146] – “service providers having a business address within the 3 mile radius would be searched. …service providers operating within that 3 mile radius, but that may have a business address outside of the 3 mile radius may also be included in the search” [0139]);
display, for selection by the user, the ranked provided on the user interface (Kumar: “FIG. 4B illustrates a listing 440 of matched service providers based on the service request 400 submitted in FIG. 4A. The listing 440 can include service providers that match the customer's request within a certain threshold determined by the service provider matching system.” [0145] – “a customer can filter or sort the view based on any relevant factor. For example, a customer can sort by rating or distance to the service address.” [0146] – See Figure 4B);
receive, by the operation module, from the user interface, a selected provider from the ranked providers to complete the request (Kumar: “the customer associated with the customer system 140 can select a service provider from the transmitted list … Once selected, information can be transmitted to the service provider matching system 102.” [0073]); and
wherein the instructions further cause the server computing device to:
request, by the operation module, a reservation for the service location from the selected ranked provider or the user (Kumar: “the service providers can do one or more of: …offering a time to do the service” [0111] - “if a customer requests a service that meets the service provider's criteria, the service can be automatically booked without any interactions from the service provider. In some embodiments, the service provider can be informed of the booked appointment” [0113]);
grant the reservation based on an availability of the service location (Kumar: “if a customer requests a service that meets the service provider's criteria, the service can be automatically booked without any interactions from the service provider. In some embodiments, the service provider can be informed of the booked appointment” [0113] – “if a customer requests a 2-hour project, the provider matching engine 101 and/or the service provider matching system 102 can match a customer to a service provider at a recommended time that fits both the customer's and service provider's schedule based on their availability.” [0061] – “a customer can enter a time range when the requested service would be needed” [0141] – “the listing 440 can include service providers that match the customer's request” [0145]); and
update by the operation module and display on the user interface an updated availability of the service location (Kumar: “the service provider matching system 102 (or other systems) can access calendar programs or services (for example, through APIs) associated with the customer or service provider and update the corresponding calendar programs or services with the confirmed booking appointment.” [0098] – “Once the booking is confirmed, the service provider matching system 102 can generate one or more proposed contracts… the contracts or contract terms can be based on … search criteria provided by the customer …transmit the contracts or contract terms to the customer system ” [0099-0100] – See also [0163]).
While Kumar teaches that the service provider is a “selected ranked prover” [0146], [0073], it does not specifically teach that the system further comprises a home management server that the server is configured to interact with, or causing the home management system to interact with the provider and the server computing device to allow access to the service location for the provider, to facilitate completion of the request, the access being based on an access code valid for the time frame provided to the provider.
However, Stevenot teaches delivery service management systems (Stevenot: Abstract), including
that the system further comprises a home management server that the server is configured to interact with (Stevenot: “computer system 1300 such as a remote server,” [0052] – “ the various services and computing devices can communicate with each other over network 150, which can include a collection of any one or more of personal area networks, local area networks, wide area networks, the Internet, and the World Wide Web. Upon receiving the order information, the lockbox remote service 105 may correspond and communicate with one or more of the user devices 120” [0024]); and
causing the home management system to interact with the provider and the server computing device to allow access to the service location for the provider, to facilitate completion of the request, the access being based on an access code valid for the time frame provided to the provider (Stevenot: “The lockbox service can operate with multiple different users, delivery providers, and e-commerce services. … the deliverer 145 may receive information from the lockbox remote service 105, such as access codes to access and drop off parcels at the lockbox 135” [0023-0025] – “customize the access code's usage, such as whether the access code … can be used for a given time period. … a time range during the day so that the lockbox 135 is used when the user is not home.” [0027] – “ generate different access codes for multiple respective users or deliverers 145. This enables the user/owner to have multiple different deliveries coming within a given time frame and further enables the user to know who accessed the lockbox” [0033] – “responsive to receiving one or more access code inputs, the access device may unlock/open a garage door” [0041] – “the access code is a one-time use code that expires after use” [0057]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to combine these references because the results would be predictable. Specifically, Kumar would continue to teach the server & receiving, by the operation module, from the user interface, a selected provider from the ranked providers to complete the request, except that now it would also teach that the server is configured to interact with, and causing the home management system to interact with the selected ranked provider and the server computing device to allow access to the service location for the selected provider, to facilitate completion of the request, the access being based on an access code valid for the time frame provided to the selected ranked provider, according to the teachings of Stevenot. This is a predictable result of the combination.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to combine these references because it would result in an improved ability to control security of service provider/package deliverer activity (Stevenot: [0003]).
Regarding Claim 12, Kumar/Stevenot teach the system of claim 11, but Kumar does not teach that a new access code is provided when the access code is invalid after expiry of the time frame. However, Stevenot teaches that a new access code is provided when the access code is invalid after expiry of the time frame (Stevenot: “In step 1060, the access code for the deliverer expires. In step 1065, an authorized owner inputs an alternative access code to retrieve the delivered package. ” [0043] – “customize the access code's usage, such as whether the access code … can be used for a given time period. … a time range during the day so that the lockbox 135 is used when the user is not home.” [0027] – “ generate different access codes for multiple respective users or deliverers 145. This enables the user/owner to have multiple different deliveries coming within a given time frame and further enables the user to know who accessed the lockbox” [0033] – “In step 1060, the access code for the deliverer expires. In step 1065, an authorized owner inputs an alternative access code to retrieve the delivered package. ” [0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Stevenot with Kumar for the reasons identified above with respect to claim 11.
Regarding Claim 13, Kumar/Stevenot teach the system of claim 11, wherein the instructions further cause the server computing device to store information relating to the completed request within a database (Kumar: “the matching database 124 can store information related to the display generation engine 104, the financing engine 106, the contract generation engine 108, the bidding engine 110, the crime monitoring engine 112, any data in the data store 114, ” [0059] – “Customer feedback is received at step 516 including timeliness of the services.” [0164] – “the financing engine 106 can … holding the processed payment in an escrow account, and distributing the payment to the service provider upon approval by the customer that the service has been satisfactorily completed.” [0039] – See also [0055-0056]).
Regarding Claim 14, Kumar/Stevenot teach the system of claim 13, wherein the instructions further cause the server computing device to analyze the information related to the completed request for use in further ranking the selected ranked provider (Kumar: “ if a service provider is at a particular location 132 and is completing a project, then availability 134 can be based on the particular location 132.” [0084] – “Customer feedback is received at step 516 including timeliness of the services.” [0164] – “the service provider matching system can determine a ranking or order based on a matching score. The matching score can be a probabilistic value that indicates the certainty of a match, or the likelihood that the match will be selected by the customer that ran the corresponding search. The matching score can also be based on qualities of the service providers. For example, a higher score may be applied to service providers with higher ratings (for example, ratings 450A, 450B, and 450C), or to service providers who are closer in distance (for example, 452) to the address where the work is requested to be performed. ” [0146] – “improve matching over time based on the various inputs and criteria that is used for the matching” [0061]).
Regarding Claim 15, Kumar/Stevenot teach the system of claim 13, wherein the database further comprises information regarding past user selections (Kumar: “matching database 124 can store any data, preferences, or information that passes through the service provider matching engine ” [0078] – “machine learning algorithms or AI to generate matching models that are executed by the service provider matching engine …The machine learning algorithms can be configured to adaptively develop and update the models over time based on new input received by the machine learning component 120. For example, the models can be regenerated on a periodic basis as new information related to customers, service providers, completed or incomplete services rendered, payments made or not made, or the like is available to help keep the predictions in the model more accurate as the information evolves over time. ” [0070-0071]).
Regarding Claim 16, Kumar/Stevenot teach the system of claim 11. Kumar does not teach that the access is overridable, but Stevenot teaches that the access is overridable (Stevenot: “the user may select a particular day or days on which the access code can be used or a time range during the day so that the lockbox 135 is used when the user is not home. Any customizations of the access codes may be transmitted to the lockbox remote service, which in turn transmits the updated information to the deliverer 145 or other user seeking access to the lockbox.” [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Stevenot with Kumar for the reasons identified above with respect to claim 11.
Regarding Claim 17, Kumar/Stevenot teach the system of claim 11, wherein geolocate IP address and geospatial data are utilized to provide access to the service location for the selected ranked provider (Kumar: “the location 132 can be determined through the use of data related to one or more sensors in the service provider system(s) 130, which can include one or more of the following: GPS, WiFi, Bluetooth, barometer, or the like. In some embodiments, the location 132 can be determined by analyzing data related to the service provider system's 130 IP address.” [0082] – “the matching can be based on custom user preferences, custom service provider preferences, customer system 140 location, service provider system 130 location,” [0069]).
Regarding Claim 18, Kumar/Stevenot teach the system of claim 11, wherein the server computing device is cloud based (Kumar: “the location 132 can be determined through the use of data related to one or more sensors in the service provider system(s) 130, which can include one or more of the following: GPS, WiFi, Bluetooth, barometer, or the like. In some embodiments, the location 132 can be determined by analyzing data related to the service provider system's 130 IP address.” [0082] – “the matching can be based on custom user preferences, custom service provider preferences, customer system 140 location, service provider system 130 location,” [0069]).
Regarding Claim 19, Kumar/Stevenot teach the system of claim 11, wherein the instructions further cause the server computing device to communicate alternative providers capable of completing the request for service in response to receiving a response indicative of a refusal to the request for service from the selected ranked provider (Stevenot: “the service provider systems 130 contacted can accept the work, … reject the work,” [0093] – “if a service provider has been selected but has gotten behind on other work, the system automatically reevaluates the expected arrival and start of work, and offers alternate service providers. ” [0225] – “providing alternative contractors to a customer if the contractor location is not consistent with the contractor satisfying service timeliness” [0230] – “the service provider … can cancel the booked service. … once the booking is cancelled, then contract can be reassigned to the next available and lowest cost service provider, or a new bid process can be started” [0122]).
Regarding Claim 20, Kumar/Stevenot teach the system of claim 11, wherein the service includes a service of delivery of a product (Kumar: “he service providers described herein may include providers of any or all of the following example services …pet-food and supplies home delivery services …diaper delivery services; dry-cleaning pickup & delivery services” [0201-0203]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Catino et al (US20160335694A1) teaches service provider booking systems based on user and service provider location, including ranking service providers in the area and calendaring the appointment within the user-requested timeframe.
Binder et al (US20200074408A1) teaches tutor-reservation systems, including reserving third-party rooms for an appointment with the booked tutor.
Fisher (US6989732B2) and Khanna et al (US12265869B1) teach system for managing access by service providers to homes/lockers using time-limited access codes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS J SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9736. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8-5 MT.
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 on (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.
/T.J.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3689
/MARISSA THEIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3689