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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 July 1, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on July 1, 2026 cancelled no claims. Claims 1-6 and 8 were amended and no new claims were added. Thus, the currently pending claims addressed below are claims 1-8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
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.
Claim 1-8 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. For the purpose of explaining the issues, the examiner is going to use independent claim 5 as an example. Independent claims 1 and 8 recite substantially the same limitations and are rejected in the same manner as explained below with regards to claim 5.
Independent claim 1 recites “register a first evaluation information and a second evaluation information in association with vendor identification information identifying the vendor, evaluator identification information identifying the evaluator, and attribute information indicating an affiliation or browsing privilege of the evaluator;”. The claimed “a first evaluation information” and “a second evaluation information” are a newly introduced term that does not have antecedent basis to the “an input of a first evaluation”, “a first evaluation”, “an input of a second evaluation”, or “a second evaluation”. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect this to be merely two different data records which are stored in a database that have no direct association to the first evaluation, the second evaluation, the input of the first evaluation, or the input of the second evaluation. However, this does not appear to be the case. According to the claim the first evaluation information and the second evaluation information are registered in “association with vendor identification information identifying the vendor, evaluator identification information identifying the evaluator, and attribute information indicating an affiliation or browsing privilege of the evaluator”. The claim “the vendor” and “the evaluator” have antecedent basis to the previously claimed “a vendor”, and either the previously claimed “one or more evaluators belonging to a first group” or the previously claimed “one or more evaluators belonging to a second group different from the first group”. First, if this is just a data record that is created but not associated with the first evaluation, the second evaluation, the input of the first evaluation, or the input of the second evaluation, then how can this data record be registered in association with vendor identification information identifying the vendor, evaluator identification information identifying the evaluator, and attribute information indicating an affiliation or browsing privilege of the evaluator? Even if one or ordinary skill in the art were to assume that the claimed “a first evaluation information” and the claimed “a second evaluation information” were to have antecedent basis to the claimed “an input of a first evaluation information” and the claimed “an input from the second evaluation information”, then the claims would still be indefinite. The first evaluation for the vendor, as claimed would only comprise “an input” from each of “the one or more evaluators belonging to the second group”. Likewise, the second evaluation for the vendor, as claimed, would only comprise “an input” from each of “the one or more evaluators belonging to the second group”. There is no indication in the claims that the first evaluation for the vendor or second evaluation for the vendor would contain any other type of data. While it might be obvious that since the evaluations are “for the vendor”, it is likely that said evaluations would include some type of vendor identification information identifying the vendor it is not inherent that it must include such data. The only information which the claims require either of the evaluations include is a single input from each of “the one or more evaluators belonging to the second group”. If this single input is a numerical indicator of each evaluator’s opinion of the vendor, then the received evaluations would neither identify the vendor, nor any of the one or more evaluators. If it is an identification of the vendor, then it would neither include an opinion of any of the evaluators nor an identification of any of the evaluators. If it is an identifier of each of the evaluators then it would neither contain the opinion of the evaluators nor the identification of the vendor. As such, it would not appear to be possible to register either of the evaluation information in association with vendor identification information identifying the vendor, evaluator identification information identifying the evaluator, and attribute information indicating an affiliation or browsing privilege of the evaluator” as claimed, much less to register the first evaluation information and the second evaluation information. Second, the phrase “the evaluator” occurs twice in this limitation which would indicate that it has antecedent basis to a previously claimed “an evaluator”. However, the claim never previously recites “an evaluator”. Instead, it recites “one or more evaluators belonging to a first group” and “one or more evaluators belonging to a second group different from the first group”. Even if, one of ordinary skill in the art were to assume that “the evaluator” is intended to have antecedent basis to one of the previously claimed “one or more evaluators belonging to a first group” and “one or more evaluators belonging to a second group different from the first group”, it would be impossible to determine which of these the applicant intends “the evaluator” to have antecedent basis to. Thus, it is clear that claim 1 is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Independent claim 5 recites “register a first evaluation in the database in association with vendor identification information identifying the vendor, evaluator identification information identifying the evaluator, and attribute information indicating an affiliation or browsing privilege of the evaluator”. This, limitation shares many of the problems identified above with regards to claim 1. First, the claimed “a first evaluation” does not have antecedent basis to the evaluation which was transmitted to the computing apparatus. Second, even if one were to assume that such antecedent basis existed, the claim would still be indefinite. The evaluation transmitted contains only a single input of an evaluation for the vendor. As such, it would not appear that it would be possible to register the evaluation in association with vendor identification information identifying the vendor, evaluator identification information identifying the evaluator, and attribute information indicating an affiliation or browsing privilege of the evaluator because at least some of this information would not be available to the computing apparatus so that it might be registered. Third, the claim does not require that the input of the evaluation or the evaluation transmitted by first evaluator apparatus be input by “an evaluator”, or even be input by “the one or more evaluators”. Since, the first evaluator apparatus is configured to be operated by “one or more evaluators belonging to a first group”, it might be obvious that the input of the evaluation for the vendor is performed by an evaluator of the one or more evaluator, but since there is no specific access controls associated with the first evaluator apparatus, another person could operate the first evaluator apparatus an provide the claimed input. As such, “an evaluator of the one or more evaluators” inputting the evaluation is not inherently required. As such, the claimed “the evaluator” in this limitation does not have proper antecedent basis. Thus, it is clear that claim 5 is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Independent claim 8 recites “registering, by the computing apparatus, the first evaluation information and the second evaluation information in association with vendor identification information identifying the vendor, evaluator identification information identifying the evaluator, and attribute information indicating an affiliation or browsing privilege of the evaluator”. This, limitation shares many of the problems identified above with regards to claim 1. First, the claimed “the first evaluation information” and “the second evaluation information” indicates that it has antecedent basis to a previously recited “a first evaluation information” and “a second evaluation information”. However, the claim has never previously recited “a first evaluation information” and “a second evaluation information”. Second, even if one were to assume that the applicant intends the claimed “the first evaluation information” to have antecedent basis to the previously claimed “an input of a first evaluation for a vendor and “the second evaluation information” to have antecedent basis to the previously claimed “an input of a second evaluation for the vendor”, the claims would still be indefinite. Since, each of the first evaluation and the second evaluation include a single input, it would not appear to be possible register the first evaluation information and the second evaluation information in association with vendor identification information identifying the vendor, evaluator identification information identifying the evaluator, and attribute information indicating an affiliation or browsing privilege of the evaluator because the computing apparatus would not be able to discern enough information from said evaluations which would allow it to register the first evaluation information and the second evaluation information in association with vendor identification information identifying the vendor, evaluator identification information identifying the evaluator, and attribute information indicating an affiliation or browsing privilege of the evaluator. Thus, it is clear that claim 8 is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Independent claims 1, 5, and 8 contain a number of other limitations which are indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. For example:
Generating evaluation summaries for the first and second evaluations - Based on the applicant’s disclosure, see at least figures 9 and 18, as well as the portions of the specification describing these figures, evaluation summaries are an average of individual evaluation results for the vendor, which is registered in a database. It is impossible for one or ordinary skill in the art to determine the intended scope of these generating steps. Since, the first evaluation consists of a single input from one or more evaluators, there would be no actual generating required. Assuming, the claimed “an input” is an evaluation result from an evaluator, there would be nothing to generate. However, it would be possible to register the evaluation result as part of the first evaluation information. Yet the step of registering the first and second evaluation information is a separate step from the generating, and the registering step does not include registering an evaluation result. As such, it would appear that the generating of the summaries would be required to be a different step from the registering of the evaluation information. If the “an input” is not intended to be an evaluation result, then one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine how the applicant’s invention can generate the claimed summary, since the information in the evaluations would not include any evaluation results that can be generated. Furthermore, calculating an average of evaluation results is the only species of and evaluation summary which appears to be able to be generated based on the result. As currently claimed, however, the claimed evaluations summaries are broad enough to encompass any and all means of generating any type of summaries based on the evaluations. The applicant’s disclosure does not have support for such a broad manner of generating summaries.
Identify the attribute information corresponding to a viewer based on identification information included in a browsing request - The claimed “a viewer” does not have antecedent basis to one of the one or more evaluators belonging to the first group or to one of the one or more evaluators belonging to the second group. However, the attribute information which is registered is “of the evaluator”. Likewise, an evaluator identification information identifying the evaluator was registered. However, the identification information included in the browsing request of the viewer does not have antecedent basis to the evaluator identification information. As such, it is unclear how the applicant’s invention can identify the attributes corresponding to the viewer, when it only has possession of attributes of the evaluator, or how the applicant invention uses identification information in the browsing request of a viewer, such that the attribute information of the evaluator become attribute information corresponding to the claimed “a viewer”.
Select the first evaluation summary or the second evaluation summary based on the attribute information - The attribute information indicates an affiliation or browsing privilege of the evaluator. The claimed “an affiliation” does not have antecedent basis to any previously claimed group, division, enterprise, or department. The claimed “browsing privilege” does not have any association with any previously claimed group, division, enterprise, department, evaluation, or evaluation summary. Thus, it is unclear how the applicant’s invention is expected to select the first evaluation summary or the second evaluation summary based on such attribute information.
Suppress transmission of - The applicant’s disclosure does not recite the term suppress transmission. However, the applicant has removed the term “not transmit” from the claim and replaced it with “suppress transmission of”. It is impossible to determine whether the applicant intends suppression to be interpreted as something other than “not transmitting”, or whether the applicant is intending suppressing transmission to be wholly and completely synonymous with not transmitting. If the intent of the limitation is to encompass something other than not transmitting, then the examiner has been unable to find support in the applicant’s disclosure for any other type of suppressing. If the applicant intends the terms to be completely synonymous then why would the applicant amend to claim to recite such a term when it is not disclosed in the specification, and the not transmitting. Finally, the selecting of the evaluation summary is based on the attribute information. Based on the selecting step either the first evaluation summary or the second evaluation summary must be selected. If the first evaluation summary is selected, then the second evaluation summary is not. As such, the act of selecting one of the summaries or the other, and the transmission of the selected summary would be all that appears to be occurring. As such, the suppressing appears to be an inherent result of selecting a first summary or a second evaluation summary, and then transmitting the selected summary, rather than an active step of suppression being performed by the applicant’s invention. Therefore, it is impossible to determine whether the applicant intends this suppression to be an actual additional step of some type being performed by the invention, or whether such suppression is intended to be an inherent result of the selecting and transmitting.
Calculating first, second, and third aggregated evaluation results; and transmitting the various aggregated evaluation results in the manner claimed – The claim only positively requires the receipt of a single evaluation with a single input from a single evaluator and only register the first evaluation in the database. If the single input in the first evaluation is an evaluation result, then one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine how the applicant’s invention can determine whether the evaluator that completed this first evaluation was in the first group much less in the division group such an evaluator belongs. Even if the applicant’s invention were to be able to somehow obtain an evaluator identification from said first evaluation, the data registered in the database, for the first evaluation, evaluator identification information identifying the evaluator. This evaluator identification information does not identify the group or division group said evaluator belongs to. These calculating limitations indicate they are performed based on evaluations “received from a plurality of evaluators belonging to the first division group”. However, the claim has previously only required the receipt of a single evaluator. It is impossible for one of ordinary skill in the art to determine whether the applicant intends this limitation to be a contingent limitation such that “if” a plurality of evaluations are received from a plurality of evaluators belonging to the” claimed group, “then” the claim performs the claimed calculating, or whether the claim intends these to be additional receiving steps which are inherently required to occur. If they are positively required to occur, it is impossible for one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the intended metes and bounds of these newly received evaluations from the plurality of evaluators belonging to the claimed groups. Are intended to have a single input, as required for the first evaluation, or do they include additional information? If they include additional information what might said additional information be? Do they include identification information that identifies the group and/or division group each evaluator belongs? It is also impossible to tell whether such new evaluations are registered in the same manner as the first evaluation, and if so what information is registered by the applicant’s invention? It would appear that these new evaluations must at least include additional information which identifies each evaluator as belong to a first group and identification information which identifies which division group each evaluator belong for the invention to calculate the aggregated evaluation results in the manner claimed. It would also require the registering of this additional information in the database in order to determine which set of aggregated results to transmit based on identification information that identifies the person issuing the browsing request as belonging to said division groups. Finally, it is impossible to tell whether each of the claimed “evaluations received from a plurality of evaluators” are a separate and distinct set of evaluations or whether some sort of association is intended to exist between them. As currently claimed they do not have antecedent basis to one another. Thus, when an evaluation is received it can only indicate that the evaluator is in one of three different and distinct groups: the first group, the first division group, or the second division group. Thus, the first calculated aggregated evaluation result can only include evaluations that indicate the evaluator is in the first division group, the second calculated aggregated evaluation result can only include evaluations that indicate the evaluators is in the second division group, and the third calculated aggregated evaluation result can only include evaluations that indicate the evaluator is in the first group. This would mean that the third calculated aggregated evaluation result would exclude evaluations completed by members of the first division group and the second division group in the calculation despite the fact that the first division group and the second division group are part of the first group. Is this how the applicant’s invention works? Or does the applicant intend to be claiming receiving a plurality of evaluations from the first group, determining based on some type of identification information which subdivision each evaluator that provided an evaluation of the plurality of evaluation belongs, and calculating an aggregated evaluation result for the entire set of evaluations, and aggregated evaluations results for each of the subdivision; and then when a browsing request is received from an evaluator belonging to specific subdivision, transmitting the overall aggregated evaluation result for the first group and the specific subdivision result for the subdivision the evaluators belongs? Finally, if these are intended to be new receiving steps, it is impossible to tell whether the first evaluation received from the evaluator is intend to be part of the calculating step or excluded from any such calculations. Currently there is no antecedent basis between the first evaluation, and any of the additional plurality of evaluations which are received. As such, it would appear that the first evaluation would be excluded from any of the calculated aggregated evaluation results. Is this how the applicant’s invention works, or is the first evaluation intended to be used in the calculating of one or more of the aggregated evaluation results? If intended to be used, then how can the applicant’s invention determine whether or not the evaluator that provided the first evaluation is in one of the division groups given than no such information regarding this evaluator appears to be obtained by the computing apparatus?
Thus, it is clear that claims 1, 5, and 8, as currently amended, are indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Dependent claims 2-4, and 6-7 fail to correct the deficiencies of the claims from which they depend and, as such, are rejected by virtue of dependency.
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 are directed to systems and a method which would be classified under one of the listed statutory classifications (i.e., 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter “PEG”) “PEG” Step 1=Yes).
However, claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim(s) 1-8 recite(s) the following abstract idea:
receiving an input of a first evaluation for a vendor from one or more evaluators belonging to a first group, wherein the first group comprises one or more evaluators belonging to a first department/division group of a first enterprise and one or more evaluators belonging to a second division group different from the first division group;
transmitting the first evaluation;
receiving an input of a second evaluation for the vendor from one or more evaluators belonging to the second group different from the first group, wherein the second group comprises a second department of the first enterprise;
transmitting the second evaluation to the computing apparatus,
registering a list of vendors;
registering a plurality of pieces of business information together with a disclosure of information indicating a disclosure range to an applicant;
registering a first evaluation information and a second evaluation information in association with vendor identification information identifying the vendor, evaluator identification information identifying the evaluator, and attribute information indicating an affiliation or browsing privilege of the evaluator, wherein the attribute information includes information identifying a department, information identifying a group, or information identifying an access privilege;
when a plurality of evaluations for a vendor associated with the vendor identification information are received from a plurality of evaluators belonging to the first group:
calculate, based on the portion of the plurality of evaluations which were received from a plurality of evaluators belonging to the first division group, a first aggregated evaluation results,
calculate, based on the portion of the plurality of evaluations which were received from a plurality of evaluators belonging to the second division group, a second aggregated evaluation results, and
calculate, based on the plurality of evaluations, a third aggregated evaluation results, and
generate a first evaluation summary including the first aggregated evaluation results, a second evaluation summary including the second aggregated evaluation results, and generate a third evaluation summary including the third aggregated evaluation results;
generate a fourth evaluation summary based on the second evaluation received from the second group;
upon receipt of a browsing request in a communication established by identification information identifying a viewer/person:
identify the attribute information corresponding to the viewer/person based on identification information included in a browsing request;
if, based on the attribute information, the viewer/person belongs to the first division group of the first group, select and transmit the first evaluation summary including the first aggregated evaluation results and the third evaluation summary including the third aggregated evaluation results while suppressing transmission of the second evaluation summary including the second aggregated evaluation results, and fourth evaluation summary;
if, based on the attribute information, the viewer/person belongs to the second division group of the first group, select and transmit the second evaluation summary including the second aggregated evaluation results and the third evaluation summary including the third aggregated evaluation results while suppressing transmission of the first evaluation summary including the first aggregated evaluation results, and fourth evaluation summary;
if, based on the attribute information, the viewer/person belongs only to the first group, select and transmit the third evaluation summary including the third aggregated evaluation results while suppressing transmission of the first evaluation summary including the first aggregated evaluation results, the second evaluation summary including the second aggregated evaluation results and fourth evaluation summary;
if, based on the attribute information, the viewer/person belongs the second group, select and transmit the fourth evaluation summary while suppressing transmission of the first evaluation summary including the first aggregated evaluation results, the second evaluation summary including the second aggregated evaluation results, and the third evaluation summary including the third aggregated evaluation results;
transmitting, from a first transmission source, a search request when an operation of searching for the list of vendors is received;
when the search request is received transmitting, to the first transmission source, a search result obtained by excluding vendors whose evaluation level identified through the first evaluation summary does not satisfy a criterion from the list;
determining, based on the disclosure information, business information allowed to be disclosed to an applicant belonging to the second group among the plurality of pieces of business information registered; and
providing the determined business information to the applicant belonging to the second group.
The limitations as detailed above, as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas namely commercial or legal interactions because they recite business relations. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites the additional elements of a first evaluator apparatus, a second evaluator apparatus, an applicant apparatus, and a computing apparatus with a database. Considered individually, the additional elements are merely a first general purpose computers, a second general purpose computer, a third general purpose computer, and a fourth general purpose computer, wherein the first general purpose computers merely perform the insignificant steps of receiving data and transmitting data, the second general purpose computers merely perform the insignificant steps of receiving data and transmitting data, the third general purpose computers merely perform the insignificant steps of receiving data and transmitting data, and the four general purpose computer that performs the insignificant steps of receiving data, storing data, and transmitting data, as well as, performing the only significant steps of the abstract idea. Considered in combination, the additional elements amount to four general purpose computers merely applying an abstract idea, wherein only one of the four general purpose computers performs a significant step of the abstract idea.
The following limitations, if removed from the abstract idea and considered additional elements, merely perform generic computer function of processing, communicating (e.g., transmitting and receiving), and displaying:
receiving an input of a first evaluation for a vendor from one or more evaluators belonging to a first group, wherein the first group comprises one or more evaluators belonging to a first department/division group of a first enterprise and one or more evaluators belonging to a second division group different from the first division group (receiving data);
transmitting the first evaluation (transmitting data);
receiving an input of a second evaluation for the vendor from one or more evaluators belonging to the second group different from the first group, wherein the second group comprises a second department of the first enterprise (receiving data);
transmitting the second evaluation to the computing apparatus (transmitting data);
registering a list of vendors (storing data);
registering a plurality of pieces of business information together with a disclosure of information indicating a disclosure range to an applicant (storing data);
registering a first evaluation information and a second evaluation information in association with vendor identification information identifying the vendor, evaluator identification information identifying the evaluator, and attribute information indicating an affiliation or browsing privilege of the evaluator, wherein the attribute information includes information identifying a department, information identifying a group, or information identifying an access privilege (storing data);
when a plurality of evaluations for a vendor associated with the vendor identification information are received from a plurality of evaluators belonging to the first group (receiving data):
upon receipt of a browsing request in a communication established by identification information identifying a viewer/person (receiving data):
transmitting the first evaluation summary including the first aggregated evaluation results and the third evaluation summary including the third aggregated evaluation results while suppressing transmission of the second evaluation summary including the second aggregated evaluation results, and fourth evaluation summary (transmitting data);
transmitting the second evaluation summary including the second aggregated evaluation results and the third evaluation summary including the third aggregated evaluation results while suppressing transmission of the first evaluation summary including the first aggregated evaluation results, and fourth evaluation summary (transmitting data);
transmitting the third evaluation summary including the third aggregated evaluation results while suppressing transmission of the first evaluation summary including the first aggregated evaluation results, the second evaluation summary including the second aggregated evaluation results and fourth evaluation summary (transmitting data);
transmitting the fourth evaluation summary while suppressing transmission of the first evaluation summary including the first aggregated evaluation results, the second evaluation summary including the second aggregated evaluation results, and the third evaluation summary including the third aggregated evaluation results (transmitting data);
transmitting, from a first transmission source, a search request when an operation of searching for the list of vendors is received (transmitting data);
when the search request is received transmitting, to the first transmission source, a search result (receiving and transmitting data); and
providing the determined business information to the applicant belonging to the second group (transmitting data).
The additional technical elements above are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor and generic computer components performing a generic computers function of processing, communicating and displaying) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using one or more general-purpose computers and generic computer components. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional technical elements above do not integrate the abstract idea/judicial exception into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. More specifically, the additional elements fail to include (1) improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), (2) applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see Vanda memo), (3) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), (4) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (5) applying or using 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 designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda memo).
Rather, the limitations merely add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on one or more computers, or merely uses computers as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Thus, the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong Two=Yes)
When considering Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
More specifically, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a first evaluator apparatus, a second evaluator apparatus, an applicant apparatus, and a computing apparatus with a database to perform the claimed functions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using one or more general-purpose computers and one or more generic computer component.
“Generic computer implementation” is insufficient to transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2352, 2357) and more generally, “simply appending conventional steps specified at a high level of generality” to an abstract idea does not make that idea patentable (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300). Moreover, “the use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter (See FairWarning, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d. 1293, citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). As such, the additional elements of the claim do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be generic computer functions in any computer implementation. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of the computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
The Examiner notes simply implementing an abstract concept on one or more computers, without meaningful limitations to that concept, does not transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent-eligible one (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1280), limiting the application of an abstract idea to one field of use does not necessarily guard against preempting all uses of the abstract idea (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3231), and further the prohibition against patenting an abstract principle “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the [principle] to a particular technological environment” (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Flook, 437 U.S. at 584), and finally merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358; Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294; Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612 (2010); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Applicant herein only requires one or more general-purpose computer and generic computer components (as evidenced from paragraphs 70-79 and 257 of the applicant’s specification); therefore, there does not appear to be any alteration or modification to the generic activities indicated, and they are also therefore recognized as insignificant activity with respect to eligibility. Finally, the following limitations, if removed from the abstract idea and considered additional elements, would be considered insignificant extra solution activity as they are directed to merely receiving, storing and/or transmitting data:
receiving an input of a first evaluation for a vendor from one or more evaluators belonging to a first group, wherein the first group comprises one or more evaluators belonging to a first department/division group of a first enterprise and one or more evaluators belonging to a second division group different from the first division group (receiving data);
transmitting the first evaluation (transmitting data);
receiving an input of a second evaluation for the vendor from one or more evaluators belonging to the second group different from the first group, wherein the second group comprises a second department of the first enterprise (receiving data);
transmitting the second evaluation to the computing apparatus (transmitting data);
registering a list of vendors (storing data);
registering a plurality of pieces of business information together with a disclosure of information indicating a disclosure range to an applicant (storing data);
registering a first evaluation information and a second evaluation information in association with vendor identification information identifying the vendor, evaluator identification information identifying the evaluator, and attribute information indicating an affiliation or browsing privilege of the evaluator, wherein the attribute information includes information identifying a department, information identifying a group, or information identifying an access privilege (storing data);
when a plurality of evaluations for a vendor associated with the vendor identification information are received from a plurality of evaluators belonging to the first group (receiving data):
upon receipt of a browsing request in a communication established by identification information identifying a viewer/person (receiving data):
transmitting the first evaluation summary including the first aggregated evaluation results and the third evaluation summary including the third aggregated evaluation results while suppressing transmission of the second evaluation summary including the second aggregated evaluation results, and fourth evaluation summary (transmitting data);
transmitting the second evaluation summary including the second aggregated evaluation results and the third evaluation summary including the third aggregated evaluation results while suppressing transmission of the first evaluation summary including the first aggregated evaluation results, and fourth evaluation summary (transmitting data);
transmitting the third evaluation summary including the third aggregated evaluation results while suppressing transmission of the first evaluation summary including the first aggregated evaluation results, the second evaluation summary including the second aggregated evaluation results and fourth evaluation summary (transmitting data);
transmitting the fourth evaluation summary while suppressing transmission of the first evaluation summary including the first aggregated evaluation results, the second evaluation summary including the second aggregated evaluation results, and the third evaluation summary including the third aggregated evaluation results (transmitting data);
transmitting, from a first transmission source, a search request when an operation of searching for the list of vendors is received (transmitting data);
when the search request is received transmitting, to the first transmission source, a search result (receiving and transmitting data); and
providing the determined business information to the applicant belonging to the second group (transmitting data).
Thus, taken individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea) (i.e., “PEG” Step 2B=No).
Thus, based on the detailed analysis above, claims 1-8 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Powers et al. (U.S. Patent 6,615,182) in view of Mann et al. (PGPUB: 2002/0019765) in further view of Hayashitani et al. (PGPUB: 2022/0398522).
Claims 1-5 and 8: Powers discloses an evaluation system that evaluates a vendor who has applied for a business, the evaluation system comprising:
a first evaluator apparatus configured to be operated by one or more evaluators belonging to a first group; (Column 6, lines 1-13 and Figure 2: a plurality of client devices of a business, wherein one of the clients is associated with a first manager of a first department of the business and another client is associated with a second manager of a second department of the business; Column 3, lines 5-27 and Figure 1: each client provides communication between a user and the server);
a second evaluator apparatus configured to be operated by one or more evaluators belonging to a second group different from the first group (Column 6, lines 1-13 and Figure 2: a plurality of client devices of a business, wherein one of the clients is associated with a third manager of a third department of the business; Column 3, lines 5-27 and Figure 1: each client provides communication between a user and the server); and
a computing apparatus that is configured to communicate with the first evaluator apparatus, second evaluator apparatus, and to access a database (Column 3, lines 28-38: a server executing a server application space; Column 3, lines 5-27 and Figure 1: each client provides communication between a user and the server and the server communicates with a database),
wherein the first evaluator apparatus is configured to receive an input of a first evaluation for the vendor from one or more evaluators belonging to the first group, and to transmit the first evaluation to the computing apparatus, wherein the second evaluator apparatus is configured to receive an input of a second evaluation for the vendor from one or more evaluators belonging to the second group, and to transmit the second evaluation to the computing apparatus,
Powers discloses wherein the first evaluator apparatus is configured to: receive an input of a first evaluation for a first employee of a temp agencies (e.g., the vendor) , wherein the first evaluation includes a first evaluator (user) identifier and a member identifier, and transmit the first evaluation to the computing apparatus; and wherein the second evaluator apparatus is configured to receive an input of a second evaluation for a second employee of the temp agency (e.g., the vendor), wherein the second evaluation includes a second evaluator ( user) identifier and a second member identifier and transmit the second evaluation to the computing apparatus in at least Figure 3 and Column 5, lines 54-60, and Column 6, line 31 through Column 7, line 13.
While Powers is disclosing evaluating a type of vendor evaluations by evaluating the temp employees provided by the agency, he does not specifically state that the evaluation is a vendor evaluation.
However, the analogous art of Mann discloses that it is known for an evaluation system to be used to evaluate a number of different things such employees, services, products, and vendors, wherein the evaluations cam be received from a plurality of different evaluator apparatuses and the evaluators can include a combination of self-evaluations, manager evaluations, peers evaluations, internal client evaluations, external client evaluations, direct report evaluations an additional manager evaluation, or evaluations from any registered user of the system, wherein the evaluations include a vendor ID, an evaluator IDs, the division of evaluator the which are all registered in association with the evaluations in a database, wherein the evaluation results can be aggregated, wherein displaying the aggregated evaluation results to certain individual can be controlled in at least the abstract, figure 12, and paragraphs 55-61, 69, 72-73 and Figure 12.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effecting filing date of the invention, to modify the invention of Powers to include the evaluations of vendors as disclosed by Mann.
The motivation for doing so it to assess a particular vendor’s performance in delivering a service or product to the organization (Mann – Paragraphs 72)
wherein the computing apparatus is further configured to register a first evaluation information and to register a second evaluation information in the database in association with vendor identification information identifying the vendor, evaluator identification information identifying the evaluator, and attribute information indicating an affiliation or browsing privilege of the evaluator, wherein the attribute information includes information identifying a department, information identifying a group, or information identifying an access privilege; (Powers - Column 11, line 4 through Column 12, line 10: the first evaluation and every other evaluation that includes the first evaluator identifier and the first vendor identifier are received and stored, wherein each of the evaluations includes a member (vendor) ID, the template ID associated with a first user (evaluator) identifier; Column 3, lines 5-38 and Column 6, lines 45-60: users access the system using browsers; Column 4, line 28 through Column 4, line 41: The a class of service table is used to determine the users access to information, the results object allows for selecting and displaying reports; the detail report included productivity and quality scores for each member with group averages for all hierarchical levels, the summary report proves averages scores for a particular member or level; the productivity and quality comparison report presents average scores, maximum scores and percentage of maximum for both quality and productivity by member with comparison averages for a chosen hierarchical level Column 13, line 43 through Column 14, line 18: the user sets filters to generate desired reports regarding the evaluations, and includes averages associated with members, all members or member levels; Column 7, line 50 through Column 9, line 8: privilege tables and class of service assignment tables are used to determine the level of access granted to each user with regards to charting; reporting and reviewing evaluation data; Mann - Abstract, Figure 12, and Paragraphs 55-61, 69, 72-73 and Figure 12: evaluating a vendor, wherein the evaluations cam be received from a plurality of different evaluator apparatuses and the evaluators can include a combination of self-evaluations, manager evaluations, peers evaluations, internal client evaluations, external client evaluations, direct report evaluations an additional manager evaluation, or evaluations from any registered user of the system, wherein the evaluations include a vendor ID, an evaluator IDs, the division of evaluator the which are all registered in association with the evaluations in a database, wherein the evaluation results can be aggregated, wherein displaying the aggregated evaluation results to certain individual can be controlled)
when a plurality of evaluations for a vendor associated with the vendor identification information are received from a plurality of evaluators belonging to the first group: calculate, based on the portion of the plurality of evaluations which were received from a plurality of evaluators belonging to the first division group, a first aggregated evaluation results, calculate, based on the portion of the plurality of evaluations which were received from a plurality of evaluators belonging to the second division group, a second aggregated evaluation results, and calculate, based on the plurality of evaluations, a third aggregated evaluation results, and generate a first evaluation summary including the first aggregated evaluation results, a second evaluation summary including the second aggregated evaluation results, and generate a third evaluation summary including the third aggregated evaluation results (Powers - Column 11, line 4 through Column 12, line 10: the first evaluation and every other evaluation that includes the first evaluator identifier and the first vendor identifier are received and stored, wherein each of the evaluations includes a member (vendor) ID, the template ID associated with a first user (evaluator) identifier; Column 3, lines 5-38 and Column 6, lines 45-60: users access the system using browsers; Column 4, line 28 through Column 4, line 41: The a class of service table is used to determine the users access to information, the results object allows for selecting and displaying reports; the detail report included productivity and quality scores for each member with group averages for all hierarchical levels, the summary report proves averages scores for a particular member or level; the productivity and quality comparison report presents average scores, maximum scores and percentage of maximum for both quality and productivity by member with comparison averages for a chosen hierarchical level Column 13, line 43 through Column 14, line 18: the user sets filters to generate desired reports regarding the evaluations, and includes averages associated with members, all members or member levels; Column 7, line 50 through Column 9, line 8: privilege tables and class of service assignment tables are used to determine the level of access granted to each user with regards to charting; reporting and reviewing evaluation data; Mann - Abstract, Figure 12, and Paragraphs 55-61, 69, 72-73 and Figure 12: evaluating a vendor, wherein the evaluations cam be received from a plurality of different evaluator apparatuses and the evaluators can include a combination of self-evaluations, manager evaluations, peers evaluations, internal client evaluations, external client evaluations, direct report evaluations an additional manager evaluation, or evaluations from any registered user of the system, wherein the evaluations include a vendor ID, an evaluator IDs, the division of evaluator the which are all registered in association with the evaluations in a database, wherein the evaluation results can be aggregated, wherein displaying the aggregated evaluation results to certain individual can be controlled);
generate a fourth evaluation summary based on the second evaluation received from the second group (Powers - Column 11, line 4 through Column 12, line 10: the first evaluation and every other evaluation that includes the first evaluator identifier and the first vendor identifier are received and stored, wherein each of the evaluations includes a member (vendor) ID, the template ID associated with a first user (evaluator) identifier; Column 3, lines 5-38 and Column 6, lines 45-60: users access the system using browsers; Column 4, line 28 through Column 4, line 41: The a class of service table is used to determine the users access to information, the results object allows for selecting and displaying reports; the detail report included productivity and quality scores for each member with group averages for all hierarchical levels, the summary report proves averages scores for a particular member or level; the productivity and quality comparison report presents average scores, maximum scores and percentage of maximum for both quality and productivity by member with comparison averages for a chosen hierarchical level Column 13, line 43 through Column 14, line 18: the user sets filters to generate desired reports regarding the evaluations, and includes averages associated with members, all members or member levels; Column 7, line 50 through Column 9, line 8: privilege tables and class of service assignment tables are used to determine the level of access granted to each user with regards to charting; reporting and reviewing evaluation data; Mann - Abstract, Figure 12, and Paragraphs 55-61, 69, 72-73 and Figure 12: evaluating a vendor, wherein the evaluations cam be received from a plurality of different evaluator apparatuses and the evaluators can include a combination of self-evaluations, manager evaluations, peers evaluations, internal client evaluations, external client evaluations, direct report evaluations an additional manager evaluation, or evaluations from any registered user of the system, wherein the evaluations include a vendor ID, an evaluator IDs, the division of evaluator the which are all registered in association with the evaluations in a database, wherein the evaluation results can be aggregated, wherein displaying the aggregated evaluation results to certain individual can be controlled);
upon receipt of a browsing request in a communication established by identification information identifying a viewer/person: identify the attribute information corresponding to the viewer/person based on identification information included in a browsing request; if, based on the attribute information, the viewer/person belongs to the first division group of the first group, select and transmit the first evaluation summary including the first aggregated evaluation results and the third evaluation summary including the third aggregated evaluation results while suppressing transmission of the second evaluation summary including the second aggregated evaluation results, and fourth evaluation summary; if, based on the attribute information, the viewer/person belongs to the second division group of the first group, select and transmit the second evaluation summary including the second aggregated evaluation results and the third evaluation summary including the third aggregated evaluation results while suppressing transmission of the first evaluation summary including the first aggregated evaluation results, and fourth evaluation summary; if, based on the attribute information, the viewer/person belongs only to the first group, select and transmit the third evaluation summary including the third aggregated evaluation results while suppressing transmission of the first evaluation summary including the first aggregated evaluation results, the second evaluation summary including the second aggregated evaluation results and fourth evaluation summary; if, based on the attribute information, the viewer/person belongs the second group, select and transmit the fourth evaluation summary while suppressing transmission of the first evaluation summary including the first aggregated evaluation results, the second evaluation summary including the second aggregated evaluation results, and the third evaluation summary including the third aggregated evaluation results.(Powers - Column 11, line 4 through Column 12, line 10: the first evaluation and every other evaluation that includes the first evaluator identifier and the first vendor identifier are received and stored, wherein each of the evaluations includes a member (vendor) ID, the template ID associated with a first user (evaluator) identifier; Column 3, lines 5-38 and Column 6, lines 45-60: users access the system using browsers; Column 4, line 28 through Column 4, line 41: The a class of service table is used to determine the users access to information, the results object allows for selecting and displaying reports; the detail report included productivity and quality scores for each member with group averages for all hierarchical levels, the summary report proves averages scores for a particular member or level; the productivity and quality comparison report presents average scores, maximum scores and percentage of maximum for both quality and productivity by member with comparison averages for a chosen hierarchical level Column 13, line 43 through Column 14, line 18: the user sets filters to generate desired reports regarding the evaluations, and includes averages associated with members, all members or member levels; Column 7, line 50 through Column 9, line 8: privilege tables and class of service assignment tables are used to determine the level of access granted to each user with regards to charting; reporting and reviewing evaluation data)
wherein the first group comprises one or more evaluators belonging to a first department/division group of a first enterprise and one or more evaluators belonging to a second division group different from the first division group; and wherein the second group comprises a second department of the first enterprise.
Powers and Mann disclose
Powers allows the organization to develop a customized user-defined hierarchy specific to their needs in at least column 6, line 31 through column 7, line 13, and that a group such as a sales group can have a first département group (Sales Group) with a first department/division group (Product A Team with a Product A Manager) and a second department/division group (Product B Team B with a Product B Manager, as well as, other departments with department managers (Service Department and Technical Department) in at least figures 2-4 and column 6, line 21 through column 9, line 8. Mann discloses that evaluators can include a combination of self-evaluations, manager evaluations, peers evaluations, internal client evaluations, external client evaluations, direct report evaluations an additional manager evaluation, or evaluations from any registered user of the system, wherein the evaluations include a vendor ID, an evaluator IDs, the division of evaluator the which are all registered in association with the evaluations in a database, wherein the evaluation results can be aggregated, wherein displaying the aggregated evaluation results to certain individual can be controlled in at least the abstract, figure 12, and paragraphs 55-61, 69, 72-73 and Figure 12. As such, Powers and Mann as combined disclose wherein the first group comprises one or more evaluators belonging to a first department/division group of a first enterprise and one or more evaluators belonging to a second division group different from the first division group.
Mann and Powers do not specifically state that the second group comprises a second department of the first enterprise.
However, the analogous art of Hayashitani discloses that it is known for an organization to evaluate a vendor using evaluators from different departments at least paragraphs 19-24,
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effecting filing date of the invention, to modify the invention of Powers and Mann to customize the user-defined hierarchy such that user 10 was responsible for obtaining a first evaluation of a vendor, user 20 was responsible for obtaining a second evaluation of the vendor, thereby resulting in the second evaluation being performed by a second department of the first enterprise as disclosed by Hayashitani.
The motivation for doing so it to ensure that an organization is able to find a suitable vendor with a high goodness of fit based on the evaluations (Hayashitani – Paragraphs 3-7)
Claim 6: Powers, Mann and Hayashitani disclose the evaluation system according to claim 1, wherein a list of vendors is registered in the database, wherein the first evaluator apparatus is configured to transmit a search request to the computing apparatus when the first evaluator apparatus receives an operation of searching for the list, and wherein when the computing apparatus receives the search request, the computing apparatus is configured to transmit a search result obtained by excluding vendors whose evaluation level identified through the first evaluation summary does not satisfy a criterion from the list to the transmission source of the first communication. (Powers – Column 7, lines 14-37: users can filter (e.g., search) performance data for analysis and reports based on keywords, such as the agency from which an agent was hired; Column 4, line 28 through Column 4, line 41: reports filtered as above, return filtered reports (e.g., search results) that contain only those agents from the specific agency that the user has access to view; Column 13, line 43 through Column 14, line 18: the user sets filters to generate desired reports regarding the evaluations, and includes averages associated with members, all members or member levels; Column 7, line 50 through Column 9, line 8: privilege tables and class of service assignment tables are used to determine the level of access granted to each user with regards to charting; reporting and reviewing evaluation data; Figure 3, item 130 and 132: a list of vendors (e.g., temp agencies) is maintained in a keyword table, wherein each member ID is liked to a vendor in a keyword assignment table)
Claim 7: Powers, Mann and Hayashitani disclose the evaluation system according to claim 1, wherein a plurality of pieces of business information is registered in the database together with a disclosure information indicating a disclosure range to an applicant, wherein the evaluation system further comprises an applicant apparatus intended to be used by an applicant belonging to the second group, and wherein the computing apparatus is configured to determine, based on the disclosure information, business information allowed to be disclosed to the applicant belonging to the second group among the plurality of pieces of business information registered in the database, and to provide the determined business information to the applicant belonging to the second group to the applicant apparatus. (Powers – Column 6, lines 1-13 and Figure 2; Column 3, lines 5-27 and Column 7, line 7-13: a user-member of the second group accesses the server using a client device to view business data; Column 5, lines 16-44, Fig. 1, Column 11, line 64 through Column 12, line 10, and Fig. 8: the database of the server stores business information such as stored procedures, organization tables, privileges tables, plans tables, data import tables, productivity tables, evaluation tables, and filter tables; the evaluation tables store responses and scores for completed evaluations; the privileges tables store user access privileges based on views of the organizational structure and on class of services; the productivity tables store productivity data for members of the performance evaluation system; and the filter tables store filters for sorting data and displaying results in the reports and charts; Column 7, line 38 through Column 9, line 8 and Figure 4: the privilege table assigns each user a view that specifies the levels and members of an organizational structure to which the user is allowed to access (e.g., disclosure range); the user has access privileges to perform services within the user's class of services for levels and members within the user's view (e.g., disclosure range); the class of service template can be customized for each user or be predefined for given groups of users; services include browsing my reviews; Column 3, line 39 through Column 4, line 53: business object call the stored procedures in the database including an organization object that interfaces with the class of service table giving the client access to allowed functions; then based on the allowed functions, the reports object receives a request for selected report and/or the chart object receives a request for a chart and displays the selected report or chart)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 1, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues, with respect to the 35 USC 112(b) rejections, that the claims as amended overcome the rejections. The examiner disagrees. While the proposed amendment corrected some of the antecedent basis issue identified, it did not correct all of the previously identified 112(b) issues, as detailed in the 112(b) rejections above. The examiner further notes that the proposed amendment has also introduced new 112(b) rejections which have been detailed in the rejection above. As such, the applicant’s arguments are not convincing and the rejections have been maintained.
The applicant argues, with regards to Step 2a, Prong 1 of the 35 USC 101 rejections, that if the “evaluator” and “vendor” are outside the scope of the claimed computer performing claimed steps, the invention cannot recite an abstract idea related to commercial or legal interactions because they recite business relations. The examiner strongly disagrees. Just because a computer performing an abstract idea does not comprise an evaluator and a vendor does not mean its not performing an abstract idea associated with the evaluator and vendor. Since the process describing steps of an abstract idea is being performed by a computer in association with the evaluator and vendor is it an abstract idea reciting business relations. Think of a computer that selects an advertisement from a group of advertisements received from an advertiser computer of an advertiser, and transmits the selected advertisement to a user device for display to the user. This is clearly an abstract idea reciting advertising activities of behaviors, yet the advertiser computer, the advertiser, the user device, and the user not part of the claimed computer itself and, as such, are outside the scope of the computer performing the steps. If one were to remove “from the advertiser computer of an advertiser”, “to a user device”, and “to a user” from the claim, the claim would recite receiving a group of advertisements, selecting an advertisement from the group of advertisements, and transmitting the selected advertisement for display. This is still clearly recited an abstract idea that falls within the enumerated category of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” category, and the commercial an legal interactions subcategory because it recites an advertising activity or behavior that is merely applied using the computer as a tool. The same is true for the instant claims. If the terms “evaluator” and “vendor” were completely removed from the claim 1, the claim would recite an evaluation system that performs evaluations for a business, the evaluation system comprising: a first apparatus configured to be operated by a first group; a second apparatus configured to be operated by a second group different from the first group; and a computing apparatus configured to communicated with the first apparatus, the second apparatus, and to access a database, wherein the first apparatus is configured to receive an input of a first evaluation of an object/entity from a member of the first group, and to transmit the first evaluation to the computing apparatus, wherein the second apparatus is configure to receive and input of a second evaluation of the object/entity from a member of the second group, and to transmit the second evaluation to the computing apparatus, wherein the computing apparatus to register a first evaluation information and a second evaluation information in association with identification information identifying the object/entity, member identification identifying the member that input the evaluation, and attribute information indicating an affiliation or browsing privilege of the member; generate a first evaluation summary based on the first evaluation; generate a second evaluation summary based on the second evaluation; identify the attribute information corresponding to a viewer based on identification information included in a browsing request; and select the first evaluation summary or the second evaluation summary based on the attribute information, wherein when the viewer belongs to the first group…, and wherein when the viewer belong to the second group…. As can plainly be seen, even when the terms evaluator and vendor are removed from the claims, the invention is still describing the receipt of evaluations performed for a business from two different groups, summarizing the evaluations, and providing the first evaluation summary of the second evaluation summary to a viewer upon request based on an affiliation with the first group, an affiliation with the second group, a browsing privileged associated with the first group, or a browsing privileged associated with the second group. As such, the claim still clearly recites an abstract idea that falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” category and the commercial and legal interactions subcategory because claims describe performing evaluations for a business, which depending on who the groups and viewer might be would encompass intercompany business relations; intracompany business relations, or company to individual person business relations. In all cases it is still reciting a computer performing an abstract idea that is describing business relations. Therefore, the examiner’s identification of the claims as reciting an abstract that falls withing the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” category and commercial and legal interactions subcategory because they recite business relations, under Step 2a, Prong 1 is completely consistent with the requirements for analysis outlined in MPEP 2106. As such, the applicant’s arguments are not convincing and the rejections have been maintained. (Examiner note: In an effort to further the prosecution of the case, the examiner notes that even if the applicant were to additionally remove the limitations in the claims associated with the evaluations being performed for a business, the claims would still recite an abstract idea that falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” category. In this case the claims would recite receiving evaluations of an object/entity/process/etc. from a first group of people and a second group of people performing; summarizing the evaluations, selecting an evaluation summary for display to a viewer based on an affiliation of the viewer with the first group or second group, and transmitting the selected evaluation summary for display to the viewer which would fall within the “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” subcategory of the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” category.)
The applicant argues, with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejections, that Powers and Hayashitani do not disclose or render obvious evaluation data with evaluator group attributes, generating evaluation summaries or providing different evaluations summaries depending on the affiliation group of the viewer as recited in the claims. The examiner disagrees. First, as currently claimed the evaluations do not include evaluation data with evaluator group attributes as detailed in the 112 rejections above. Instead, the claims merely require storing some type of first evaluation information that stores attribute information indicating an affiliation or browsing privilege of one of the evaluators. Since powers stores access control information for each employee including the affiliation and browsing privileges of the first evaluator and the second evaluator, he is disclosing registering the claimed first evaluation information in the cited sections of the 103 rejections above. Likewise, Powers discloses calculating total scores associated with an evaluation, and generating detail and summary reports based on the one or more evaluations in the cited sections of the 103 rejections above. As such, Powers clearly discloses generating evaluation summaries. Finally, as cited in the 103 rejections above, Powers discloses implementing access controls in association with the summaries so that only people authorized to see such summaries with be able to receive said summaries. Therefore, Powers clearly discloses providing different evaluations summaries depending on the affiliation group of the viewer. Thus, the applicant’s arguments are not convincing and the rejections have been maintained. (Examiner’s note: the newly added prior art was added due to the newly added limitation of vendor identification information identifying the vendor, and to clear up the confusion the applicant appeared to have with the teaching of Powers as it related to evaluations of a vendor. The applicant appears to have a hard time understanding the when Powers teaches evaluating temp employes from specific temp agencies, he is disclosing an evaluation of said temp agency. By adding Mann to disclose the storing of the identification information identifying the vendor, and expanding they type of vendor to encompass any vendor, the examiner hopes to further the prosecution of the case.)
The applicant argues, with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejections, that Powers and Hayashitani do not teach the different evaluator groups and different aggregated evaluations according to the division group of the viewer claimed in claim 5. The examiner disagrees. First, the claim does not require different aggregated evaluations according to the division group of the viewer. Instead, it requires aggregating evaluations received from a plurality of evaluators belonging to the division group. Notwithstanding the 112 issues identified above with regards to this limitation, Powers clearly discloses, as cited in the 103 rejection above, that the a class of service table is used to determine the users access to information, the results object allows for selecting and displaying reports; the detail report included productivity and quality scores for each member with group averages for all hierarchical levels, the summary report provide averages scores for a particular member or level; the productivity and quality comparison report presents average scores, maximum scores and percentage of maximum for both quality and productivity by member with comparison averages for a chosen hierarchical level, Powers further discloses that the user sets filters to generate desired reports regarding the evaluations, and includes averages associated with members, all members or member levels; and that the privilege tables and class of service assignment tables are used to determine the level of access granted to each user with regards to charting; reporting and reviewing evaluation data. As such, it is clear that Powers discloses aggregating evaluations received from a plurality of evaluators belonging to the division group and controlling the display of such aggregated evaluations based on identification information that indicates the requestor is part of said group and/or has access to information associated with evaluations from said group. As such, the applicant’s arguments are not convincing because the limitations of the claims as currently written are clearly disclosed by the combination of Powers, Mann, and Hayashitani. Therefore, the rejections have been maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Suzuki et al. (2019/0347619) which discloses setting disclosure ranges for information stored in a database.
Melamed et al. (2008/0126173) which discloses the on-line generation and assignment of evaluations wherein user input to is received generate a customized evaluation for a particular organization including input for specifying a target audience (evaluator) for the evaluation, specifying a subject (evaluatee) of the evaluation, specifying associated evaluation questions for the target audience, and specifying potential answer choice types to be entered by evaluators when completing the evaluation; and, evaluation assignment module for generating an evaluations assignment interface via a web-based communication for receiving user input to selectively assign and schedule by date and date range the generated evaluations to one or more evaluators for receipt at web-enabled devices, wherein the assigned evaluations are capable of being viewed and completed on-line by the evaluators.
Sano (JP2022037826A) which discloses an evaluator that is a recruiter evaluating a candidate, assigning the candidate to a group, and matching the evaluated candidate with a job opportunity.
Sugaya (WO2022049565) which discloses a human resources evaluation system that receives the registration of a first person; acquires information related to the past work of the first person and information related to the past performance of the first person, which have been input by an employer of the first person; evaluating the first person on the basis of the acquired information; and presenting the evaluation results.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN W VAN BRAMER whose telephone number is (571)272-8198. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 5:30 am - 4 pm EST.
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, Spar Ilana 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.
/John Van Bramer/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622
Prosecution Insights