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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on January 20, 2025 cancelled no claims. Claims 1, 3-5, 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.
While the proposed amendment filed on January 20, 2026 overcame one of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues of claim 1-8 raised in the Office Action dated October 21, 2025, the amendment fails to overcome all of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues of claims 1-8 raised in the Office Action dated October 21, 2025, as well as introduced new 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues. Thus, the rejection is maintained and detailed below.
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 5, as amended, recites “the evaluation system comprising: a first evaluator apparatus configured to be operated by one or more evaluators belonging to a first group; and a computing apparatus that is configured to communicate with the first evaluator apparatus, the second evaluator apparatus, and to access to a database”. It is now clear that the claim as amended is to an evaluation system comprising: a first evaluator apparatus and a computing apparatus. It is also clear that the one or more evaluators and the first group to which they belong are outside the scope of the claimed first evaluator system. However, claim 5 as currently written contains the following limitations that render the claim indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention:
First, the claim as amended recites “a computing apparatus that is configured to communicate with the first evaluator apparatus, the second evaluator apparatus, and to access to a database”. However, “a second evaluator apparatus” has never been claimed. As such, the claimed “the second evaluator apparatus” lacks proper antecedent basis which renders the claim indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Second, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to practice the claimed invention as currently written. As currently claimed, the claim is broad enough to encompass “the first evaluator configured to be operated by only one evaluator belonging to a first group”, “wherein the first evaluator apparatus is configured to receive a single input of a single evaluation for the single vendor and to transmit the single evaluation to the computing apparatus”. The computing apparatus receives the single transmitted evaluation for the vendor and registers “a first evaluation information based on the single evaluation received from the evaluator apparatus in a database for the vendor. At this point, one of ordinary skill in the art would realize that the claimed “an input”, which can only be a single input, must have been a single piece of input that allows the computing apparatus to identify the vendor, because only “an input” of the single evaluation and the applicant’s disclosure does not appear to support scanning or upload the evaluation which could indicate that the claimed “an input” could be more than a single type of data. As such, since the only information claimed “a first evaluation information” can only be some type of identifier of the vendor because that is only information contained in the evaluation and, therefore, is the only information that can be obtained based on the evaluation. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine how the applicant’s invention is expected to perform the step of “wherein when the computing apparatus receives from a transmission source a browsing request in a first communication established by identification information that identifies a person belonging to the first group, the computing apparatus is configured to transmit the first evaluation information to the transmission source”. The computing apparatus received the first evaluation from the first terminal, but the evaluation did not include any information identifying the single evaluator that provided the “an input” for the single evaluation, much less, information identifying the first group to which they belong or the identification information of other evaluators that belong to the first group. While it is certainly possible for the applicant’s invention to receive “from a transmission source a browsing request in a first communication established by identification information that identifies a person”. There does not appear to be any way in which the applicant’s invention can determine that the “identification information that identifies a person” is “identification information that identifies a person belonging to the first group”. Neither the evaluation nor the first evaluation information is not required to have any type of identification information that: identifies the evaluator, identifies the group the evaluator belongs to, or identifies any other person in the first group. Furthermore, the claim makes no mention of storing any type of identification information that: identifies the first group or identifiers associated with each member of the first group. Without having access to the information regarding identifiers for each member of the first group, it would not appear possible for the applicant’s invention to know that the “browsing request” “established by identification information that identifies a person” is actually “identification information that identifies a person belonging to the first group”. Likewise, without requiring that the received evaluation includes additional inputs input by the evaluator, such as, at least an identifier of the first group to which the evaluator belongs, it would not appear possible for the applicant’s invention to transmit the first evaluation information to the transmission source based on the fact that the browsing request identification information that identifies a person. Neither the browsing request is required to include an identifier of the first group, nor the received evaluation is required to include information regarding the first group. Even if one were to assume that the browsing request includes identification information of the first group and identification information of one member of the first group. This information could not be matched to the single evaluation received because it included no information regarding an identification of the first group the evaluator providing input belonged. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine how the applicants invention can perform the steps of “wherein when the computing apparatus receives from a transmission source a browsing request in a first communication established by identification information that identifies a person belonging to the first group, the computing apparatus is configured to transmit the first evaluation information to the transmission source”. 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, regards as the invention.
Next, while it is certainly possible for “the first group” to comprise “one or more evaluators belonging to a first division group and one or more evaluators belonging to a second division group different from the first division group”. The applicant’s invention does not appear to have access to such information since it has neither been required to be received and is never previously indicated as being stored. As such, one of ordinary skill in the are would not be able to determine how the applicant’s invention can “calculate a first average value as an average of evaluations of the vendor received from a plurality of evaluators belonging to the first division group”; “calculate a second average value as an average of evaluations of the vendor received from a plurality of evaluators belonging to the second division group”; or “calculate a third average value as an average of evaluations of the vendor from a plurality of evaluators belonging to the first group”. The claim only receives a single evaluation and this single evaluation is based on a single input which must be some type of identification of the vendor. There is no indication in the claim that previously received evaluations of the vendor received from a plurality of evaluators belonging to the first division group, nor what might be in any such evaluations. If the applicant intends the recitation of “evaluations of the vendor received from a plurality of evaluators belonging to the first division group”, to be an indication that such evaluations are received, there is still no indication that said evaluation contain any information for which an average can be calculated calculate a first average value as an average of evaluations of the vendor because the initial evaluation did not include any numeric input regarding any type of criterion for which an average could be calculated. Mathematically speaking, it is not possible to calculate the average of (NA+3+5+2) because NA is not a value. In order to calculate such an average, the invention must either throw out the NA data and calculate the average as (3+5+2)/3 or alternatively assign NA to the value of zero and calculate the average as (3+5+2)/4. The same arguments are true for the limitations “calculate a second average value as an average of evaluations of the vendor received from a plurality of evaluators belonging to the second division group”; and “calculate a third average value as an average of evaluations of the vendor from a plurality of evaluators belonging to the first group”. In order to perform such calculations, the received evaluation information must contain numerical values that can be averaged. One cannot assume that such numerical values are present, because they are not inherently present as the first received evaluation did not include any numerical values that could be averaged. Additionally, one of ordinary skill would not be able to determine whether the evaluation received based on input from an evaluator belonging to the first group is expected to be part of the calculated first average of evaluations of the vendor received from a plurality of evaluators belonging to the first division group or whether said first calculated average does not include this evaluation. Likewise, one of ordinary skill would not be able to determine whether the evaluation received based on input from an evaluator belonging to the first group is expected to be part of the calculated; second average value as an average of evaluations of the vendor received from a plurality of evaluators belonging to the second division group, or whether said second calculated average does not include this evaluation. Based on the claim one knows that the “first evaluator apparatus” receives “an input of an evaluation for the vendor” and that the evaluator that provided the input belons “to the first group”. One also knows that “the first group comprises one or more evaluators belonging to a first division group and one or more evaluators belonging to a second division group different from the first division group”. Thus, it is possible that the evaluator belonging to the first group that provided the input in the evaluation could belong to the first division group or the second division group. There does not appear to be any way for the applicant’s invention to determine whether said evaluator belongs in the first division group or the second division group. Without being able to make such a determination, it would not appear possible to use said evaluation in the calculation, even though said evaluation must be an evaluation received from an evaluator that belongs in either the first division group or the second division group. 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, regards as the invention.
Finally, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine how the applicants invention can perform the steps of: “receives from a transmission source a browsing request in a third communication established by identification information that identifies a person belonging to the first division group”; “transmit the first average value and the third average value as the first evaluation information of the predetermined vendor to the transmission source of the third communication”; “receives from a transmission source a browsing request in a fourth communication established by identification information that identifies a person belonging to the second division group”; and “transmit the second average value and the third average value as the first evaluation information of the predetermined vendor to the transmission source of the fourth communication”. The claimed “the first evaluation information” has antecedent basis to the claimed “a first evaluation information” registered “based on the evaluation received”. Thus, even if the applicant’s claim was somehow able to determine from a “browsing request” established using “identification information that identifies a person” whether or not that person belongs to “the first division group” or “the second division group”, without first having information regarding “identification information” and its association with “the first division group” or “the second division group”, which is unlikely, one or ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine how the registered “first evaluation information” now somehow becomes “the first average value and the third average value” and/or “the second average value and the third average value as the first evaluation information”. Finally, while the claim requires the evaluator to belong to the first group, and that the first group comprises one or more evaluators belonging to a first division group and one or more evaluators belonging to a second division group different from the first division group, this only tells us that the evaluator belongs to the first group and that said evaluator may be in the first division group; they may be in the second division group; they may be some other division group; or the only required evaluator in the first group belongs to both the first division group, the second division group, and any other possible division group because the first group is not required to consist of only the first division group and the second division group but rather comprise the first division group and the second division group. As such, one or ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine why the claimed invention transmit the first average value and the third average value as the first evaluation information if the third average value is not required to be calculated for members of the first group that are in the first division group. If all of the evaluations from members of the first group are also members of the second division group, why does the invention include the calculated third average which is not associated with the first division group, along with the calculated first average as the first evaluation information to a person identified as belonging to the first division group? The same issue arises with transmitting the calculated second average and calculated third average as the first evaluation information when the calculated third average is based on evaluations of evaluators that only belong to the first group and the first division group. 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, regards as the invention.
In order to overcome the 35 USC 112(b) rejections, it would appear that the applicant would need to amend the independent claims to recite the following: An evaluation system that evaluates a vendor who has applied for a business, the evaluation system comprising:
a computing apparatus configured to:
store, in a database, a first division group identifier and a plurality of identifiers of members associated with the first division group;
store, in the database, a second division group identifier and a plurality of identifiers of members associated with the second division group; and
store, in the database, a first group identifier and a plurality of identifiers of members associated with the first group;
store, in the database, a plurality of vendor IDs of vendors, wherein the plurality of vendor IDs includes at least a first vendor identifier of a first vendor;
receive a first plurality of evaluations, each of the first plurality of evaluations comprising at least the first vendor identifier, a plurality of numerically evaluated criterion associated with the first vendor, and the first division group identifier;
determine that the first vendor identifier in the first plurality of evaluations matches the vendor identifier of the first vendor in the plurality of vendor IDs in the database;
register the first plurality of evaluations in association with the determined matched vendor identifier of the first vendor;
receive a second plurality of evaluations, each of the second plurality of evaluations comprising at least the first vendor identifier, a plurality of numerically evaluated criterion associated with the first vendor, and the second division group identifier;
determine that the first vendor identifier in the second plurality of evaluations matches the vendor identifier of the first vendor in the plurality of vendor IDs in the database;
register the second plurality of evaluations in association with the determined matched vendor identifier of the first vendor;
receive a third plurality of evaluations, each of the third plurality of evaluations comprising at least the first vendor identifier, a plurality of numerically evaluated criterion associated with the first vendor, the first group identifier, and the first division group identifier;
determine that the first vendor identifier in the third plurality of evaluations matches the vendor identifier of the first vendor in the plurality of vendor IDs in the database;
register the third plurality of evaluations in association with the determined matched vendor identifier of the first vendor; and
wherein the plurality of numerically evaluated criterion comprised in the first plurality of evaluations, the plurality of numerically evaluated criterion comprised in the second plurality of evaluations, and the plurality of numerically evaluated criterion comprised in the third plurality of evaluations are the same numerically evaluated criterion; and
a first evaluator apparatus, wherein the first evaluator apparatus is intended to be used by one or more first evaluators belonging to the first group, wherein the first group consists of: one or more evaluators belonging to a first division group and one or more evaluators belonging to a second division group different from the first division group, wherein the first evaluator apparatus is configured to:
receive a plurality of inputs of a new evaluation for the first vendor, wherein the new evaluation includes at least an evaluator identifier, the first group identifier, the first vendor identifier, a plurality of numerically evaluated criterion associated with the first vendor, and either the first division group or the second division group, wherein the plurality of numerically evaluated criterion comprised in the new evaluation is the same numerically evaluated criterion as the plurality of numerically evaluated criterion comprised in the first plurality of evaluations, the plurality of numerically evaluated criterion comprised in the second plurality of evaluations, and the plurality of numerically evaluated criterion comprised in the third plurality of evaluations are the same numerically evaluated criterion; and
transmit the new evaluation to the computing apparatus;
wherein the computing apparatus is further configured to:
receiving, from the first evaluator apparatus, the new evaluation;
determine that the vendor identifier in the new evaluation matches the first vendor identifier in the plurality of vendor IDs stored in the database;
register a new evaluation information based on the new evaluation in the database in association with the determined first vendor identifier, wherein the new evaluation information comprises at least the first evaluator identifier; the first group identifier, the plurality of numerically evaluated criterion associated with the vendor, and either the first division group identifier or the second division group identifier;
receive, in a first communication and from a first transmission source, a first browsing request, the first browsing request including identification information of a first person;
determine the identification information of the first person matches an identifier of the plurality of identifiers of members associated with the first group;
determine that the new evaluation includes the first group identifier;
transmit, in response to determining the first person matches the identifier of the plurality of identifiers of members associated with the first group and determining the new evaluation includes the first group identifier, the new evaluation information to the first transmission source;
determine the new evaluation includes the first division group identifier;
calculate, based on the first plurality of evaluations and the determination that the new evaluation includes the first division group identifier, a first average value by averaging the plurality of numerally evaluated criterion in the first plurality of evaluations and the plurality of numerically evaluated criterion in the new evaluation;
calculate, based on the second plurality of evaluations, a second average value by averaging the plurality of numerically evaluated criterion in the second plurality of evaluations;
calculate, based on the third plurality of evaluations and the determination that the new evaluation includes the first group identifier, a third average value by averaging the plurality of numerically evaluated criterion in the third plurality of evaluations and the plurality of numerically evaluated criterion in the new evaluation;
receive, in a second communication and from a second transmission source, a second browsing request, the second browsing request including identification information of a second person;
determine the identification information of the second person matches an identifier of the plurality of identifiers of members associated with the first division group;
transmit, in response to determining identification information of the second person matches the identifier of the plurality of identifiers of members associated with the first division group and in response to determining the new evaluation includes the first division group identifier, the first average value and the third average value;
receive, in a third communication and from a third transmission source, a third browsing request, the third browsing request including identification information of a third person;
determine the identification information of the third person matches an identifier of the plurality of identifiers of members associated with the second division group; and
transmit, in response to determining identification information of the third person matches the identifier of the plurality of identifiers of members associated with the second division group, the second average value.
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 any one of a first enterprise, a first department of a first enterprise, or one or more evaluators belonging to a first division group 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, wherein the second group comprises a second enterprise different from the first enterprise or a second department of the first enterprise;
transmitting the second evaluation;
register a first evaluation information based on the first evaluation for the vendor,
register a second evaluation information based on the second evaluation for the vendor;
transmitting the first evaluation information to a transmission source of a first communication and not transmitting the second evaluation information to the transmission source of the first communication, when a browsing request is received from the transmission source in the first communication established by identification information that identifies a person belonging to the first group;
transmitting the second evaluation information to a transmission source of a second communication and not transmitting the first evaluation information to the transmission source of the second communication, when a browsing request is received from the transmission source in the second communication established by identification information that identifies a person belonging to the second group;
calculating a first average value as an average of evaluations of the vendor received from a plurality of evaluators belonging to the first division group;
calculating a second average value as an average of evaluations of the vendor received from a plurality of evaluators belonging to the second division group;
calculating a third average value of evaluations of the vendor and transmitting the third average value as the first evaluation information of the predetermined vendor to the transmission source of the first communication when the evaluations for a predetermined vendor from a plurality of evaluators belonging to the first group are received from the transmission source of the first communication evaluations;
transmitting the first average value and the third average value as the first evaluation information of the predetermined vendor to a transmission source of a third communication when a browsing request is received from a transmission source in the third communication established by identification information that identifies a person belonging to the first division group;
transmitting the second average value and the third average value as the first evaluation information of the predetermined vendor to a transmission source of a fourth communication when a browsing request is received in the fourth communication established by identification information that identifies a person belonging to the second division group;
registering a list of vendors;
transmitting a search request when an operation of searching for the list is received;
transmitting, to the transmission source of the first communication, a search result obtained by excluding vendors whose evaluation level identified through the first evaluation information does not satisfy a criterion from the list when the search request is received;
registering a plurality of pieces of business information together with a disclosure of information indicating a disclosure range to an applicant;
determining, 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;
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 any one of a first enterprise, a first department of a first enterprise, or one or more evaluators belonging to a first division group 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, wherein the second group comprises a second enterprise different from the first enterprise or a second department of the first enterprise (receiving data);
transmitting the second evaluation (transmitting data);
register a first evaluation information based on the first evaluation for the vendor (storing data);
register a second evaluation information based on the second evaluation for the vendor (storing data);
transmitting the first evaluation information to a transmission source of a first communication and not transmitting the second evaluation information to the transmission source of the first communication, when a browsing request is received from the transmission source in the first communication established by identification information that identifies a person belonging to the first group (receiving and storing data);
transmitting the second evaluation information to a transmission source of a second communication and not transmitting the first evaluation information to the transmission source of the second communication, when a browsing request is received from the transmission source in the second communication established by identification information that identifies a person belonging to the second group (receiving and storing data);
receiving, from the transmission source of the first communication, evaluations for a predetermined vendor from a plurality of evaluators belonging to the first group (receiving data);
receiving, from a plurality of evaluators belonging to the first division group, evaluations of the vendor (receiving data);
evaluations of the vendor received from a plurality of evaluators belonging to the second division group (receiving data);
transmitting the first average value and the third average value as the first evaluation information of the predetermined vendor to a transmission source of a third communication when a browsing request is received from a transmission source in the third communication established by identification information that identifies a person belonging to the first division group (receiving and transmitting data);
transmitting the second average value and the third average value as the first evaluation information of the predetermined vendor to a transmission source of a fourth communication when a browsing request is received in the fourth communication established by identification information that identifies a person belonging to the second division group (receiving and transmitting data);
transmitting the third average value as the first evaluation information of the predetermined vendor to the transmission source of the first communication when the evaluations for a predetermined vendor from a plurality of evaluators belonging to the first group are received from the transmission source of the first communication evaluations (receiving and transmitting data);
registering a list of vendors (storing data);
transmitting a search request when an operation of searching for the list is received (receiving and transmitting data);
transmitting, to the transmission source of the first communication, a search result obtained by excluding vendors whose evaluation level identified through the first evaluation information does not satisfy a criterion from the list when the search request is received (receiving and transmitting data);
registering a plurality of pieces of business information together with a disclosure of information indicating a disclosure range to an applicant (storing 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 any one of a first enterprise, a first department of a first enterprise, or one or more evaluators belonging to a first division group 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, wherein the second group comprises a second enterprise different from the first enterprise or a second department of the first enterprise (receiving data);
transmitting the second evaluation (transmitting data);
register a first evaluation information based on the first evaluation for the vendor (storing data);
register a second evaluation information based on the second evaluation for the vendor (storing data);
transmitting the first evaluation information to a transmission source of a first communication and not transmitting the second evaluation information to the transmission source of the first communication, when a browsing request is received from the transmission source in the first communication established by identification information that identifies a person belonging to the first group (receiving and storing data);
transmitting the second evaluation information to a transmission source of a second communication and not transmitting the first evaluation information to the transmission source of the second communication, when a browsing request is received from the transmission source in the second communication established by identification information that identifies a person belonging to the second group (receiving and storing data);
receiving, from the transmission source of the first communication, evaluations for a predetermined vendor from a plurality of evaluators belonging to the first group (receiving data);
receiving, from a plurality of evaluators belonging to the first division group, evaluations of the vendor (receiving data);
evaluations of the vendor received from a plurality of evaluators belonging to the second division group (receiving data);
transmitting the first average value and the third average value as the first evaluation information of the predetermined vendor to a transmission source of a third communication when a browsing request is received from a transmission source in the third communication established by identification information that identifies a person belonging to the first division group (receiving and transmitting data);
transmitting the second average value and the third average value as the first evaluation information of the predetermined vendor to a transmission source of a fourth communication when a browsing request is received in the fourth communication established by identification information that identifies a person belonging to the second division group (receiving and transmitting data);
transmitting the third average value as the first evaluation information of the predetermined vendor to the transmission source of the first communication when the evaluations for a predetermined vendor from a plurality of evaluators belonging to the first group are received from the transmission source of the first communication evaluations (receiving and transmitting data);
registering a list of vendors (storing data);
transmitting a search request when an operation of searching for the list is received (receiving and transmitting data);
transmitting, to the transmission source of the first communication, a search result obtained by excluding vendors whose evaluation level identified through the first evaluation information does not satisfy a criterion from the list when the search request is received (receiving and transmitting data);
registering a plurality of pieces of business information together with a disclosure of information indicating a disclosure range to an applicant (storing 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 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, wherein the first group comprises a first department/division of a first enterprise, wherein the first group further comprises one or more evaluators belonging to the first department/division group and one or more evaluators belonging to a second division group different from the first department/division 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, wherein the second group comprises a second department of the first enterprise or a second enterprise different from the first enterprise (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, 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, 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.
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 the evaluation can include evaluations of a vendor in at least Column 7, lines 14-37. While it is reasonable to assume that the evaluations would include users that work in different departments that were hired from the same agency that are being evaluated by different evaluators, Powers does not specifically disclose a hierarchy in which a user in a first department evaluates a vendor, and a user in a second department different from the first evaluates the vendor.
However, the analogous art Hayashitani discloses that it is known for an organization such as an acute care hospital to desire to transfer a patient to medical facility in accordance with a patient’s symptoms, and for the organization to obtain different evaluations for with respect to the medical facility from different units such as a user evaluation unit that obtains user evaluation information about the medical facility from previous patients and/or their family members, a staff evaluation unit that obtains staff evaluation information about the medical facility from staff that have previously been involved in transfers to the medial facility, and a facility data evaluation unit that obtains facility data benchmarks based on past length of stays, past length of time to complete a transfer, recovery degrees after transfer etc. in 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 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 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)
wherein the computing apparatus is further configured to register a first evaluation information based on the first evaluation in the database for the vendor, and to register a second evaluation information based on the second evaluation in the database for the vendor (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),
wherein when the computing apparatus receives from a transmission source a browsing request in a first communication established by identification information that identifies a person belonging to the first group, the computing apparatus is configured to transmit the first evaluation information to the transmission source of the first communication and not transmit the second evaluation information to the transmission source of the first communication (Powers – 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), and
wherein when the computing apparatus receives from a transmission source a browsing request in a second communication established by identification information that identifies a person belonging to the second group, the computing apparatus is configured to transmit the second evaluation information to the transmission source of the second communication, and not transmit the first evaluation information to the transmission source of the second communication. (Powers – 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)
calculate a first average value as an average of evaluations of the vendor received from a plurality of evaluators belonging to the first division group;
calculate a second average value as an average of evaluations of the vendor received from a plurality of evaluators belonging to the second division group;
calculate a third average value as an average of evaluations for a predetermined vendor from a plurality of evaluators belonging to the first group when the evaluations for the predetermined vendor are received from the transmission source of the first communication, and transmit, to the transmission source of the third communications, the third average value as the first evaluation information of the predetermined vendor (Powers – 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);
transmit the first average value and the third average value to a transmission source of a third communication when a browsing request in the third communication is received, wherein the third communication is established by identification information that identifies a person belonging to the first department/division group (Powers – 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);
transmit the second average value and the third average value to a transmission source of a fourth communication when a browsing request in the fourth communication is received, wherein the fourth communication is established by identification information that identifies a person belonging to the second department/division group. (Powers – 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)
Claim 6: Powers 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 information 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 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 January 20, 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 overcomes the issues regarding whether the evaluator is intended to be part of the scope of the claimed invention, as well as, the antecedent basis issue associated with the vendor, one or ordinary skill in the art would not be able to practice the claimed invention without additional information than provided in the claims as currently written. As detailed in the rejection above, if you receive an evaluation comprising a single input, transmit this evaluation, obtain evaluation information from the evaluation, and register the evaluation information in the database for the vendor, the single input must be the name or ID of the vendor because without this information it would not be possible to register the evaluation information in the database for the vendor, which is what the claim initially does in response to receiving the evaluation. This is true for the second evaluation too, since, there is only a single input of the first evaluation and a single input of the second evaluation. The applicant’s disclosure neither supports an evaluator uploading a completed evaluation to the first or second evaluator apparatus, so the single input does not appear to represent input comprising a series of different types of data associated the vendor. As such, the term in broad enough to encompass a single piece of information being input. Since some type of identification of the vendor is required to register the evaluations in association with the vendor, this single input must be an identifier of the vendor. Since the evaluations contain no information regarding the individual evaluator nor any groups with which they belong, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine how the applicant’s invention performs the remainder of the steps of the claims. Should the initial single input be an indication of the group to which an evaluator belongs, then one of ordinary skill in the art would not know how the applicant’s invention can register the evaluation information (e,g, group ID) in association with the vendor because the evaluation has a group ID but no identification of the vendor the evaluation is for. The claimed evaluation does not inherently have any type of data that is part of the evaluation itself. There are no step of determining a vendor, an evaluator, a first group of the evaluator, etc.; encoding this information into an evaluations, and transmitting the encoded evaluation to the first evaluator apparatus so that the encoded evaluator can input a plurality of types of evaluation information of the first vendor into the evaluations. There is no disclosure of the evaluator inputting the evaluator ID, the first group ID, the vendor ID, or any other type of necessary information before inputting a plurality of types of evaluation information; and then sending the evaluation information to the computing apparatus. Using claim 1 as an example, the following types of information would be required of the first evaluation: some type of identification of the vendor the evaluation is completed for, and a first group identifier of the evaluator or a first evaluator ID if the computing apparatus has a way to identify the first group based on an evaluator ID. Likewise, the second evaluation must have some type of identification of the vendor for which the evaluation is completed; and a second group identifier different from the first group or an second evaluator ID for which the applicant’s invention can determine the group identifier of the second evaluator. The first browsing request must include either the first group ID or a browsing user identifier if the applicant’s invention can determine the browsing user is a member of the first group based on the browsing identifier. Only with the first evaluation including the required information, the second evaluation information including the required information and the browsing request including the required information, would one of ordinary skill in the art be able to transmit the first evaluation information to the transmission source of the first communication source and not the second evaluation information. The same fact pattern is true for the second browsing request. In order to make the required determinations, the evaluations themselves must have the required information and the browsing requires must include the required information. Without it, it would be impossible for one or ordinary skill in the art to make the required matching and perform the required transmitting. The applicant appears to be misconstruing the meaning of “breadth” with the meaning of “indefinite”. Breadth means that the claims recite a broad manner in which an step is performed. A matter of breadth does not raise an issue of 112(b) indefiniteness. However, an issue of breadth can result in a 112(a) rejection for written description (even for the originally filed claims) if the applicant’s disclosure does not have support for enough individual species of ways in which such a step can be perform to support the broader genus being claimed. Indefinite on the other hand is a situation in which one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to perform the claimed steps given the information recited in the claims given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims in light of the applicant’s disclosure. In the instant case, the issue is an indefinite issue because only one input is provided for any evaluation. The applicant’s disclosure neither defines the terms “evaluation” or “input:” nor imposes meaningful limitations on what an evaluation or an input must be. As such, the claimed evaluation cannot be said to inherently include any type of information such as a vendor name associated with the vendor, an identifier of the first evaluator, or an identifier of the first group. Thus, the term evaluation when given it broadest reasonable interpretation is a document upon which an evaluator may input one or more pieces of information, wherein the one or more pieces of information include an evaluator identifier, a vendor identifier, a first group identifier, and an evaluator rating. Likewise, the claimed “an input” cannot be said to inherently any specific types of information. As such, the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the applicant’s disclosure is one or more of: an evaluator identifier, a vendor identifier, a first group identifier, and an evaluator rating. Using these broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, it is clear that the “an input” on “the evaluation” need only be one the evaluator identifier, the vendor identifier, the first group identifier, or the evaluator rating. As describe in the 112(b) rejection, if the one input is the vendor identifier, then the applicant’s invention can associated the evaluation with the vendor, but cannot perform any of the claimed steps which require the first group identifier because these is no way for the computing apparatus to ascertain the evaluator the completed the evaluation nor the group he belongs to from the single input information. If the one input information is not the vendor identifier then the applicant’s invention would not be able to register the first evaluation information in association with the vendor because there is no way for the applicant’s invention to ascertain the vendor information. It is true that if the applicant’s disclosure has some type of technological support for determining the first group based on the IP address included in the TCP/IP packet of the first communication, or some other means of identifying this information based solely on receiving an evaluation with only a vendor ID that such information regarding the evaluator ID or the first group might be able to be obtained. However, even if such support existed, it would not be the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, is would be a narrow interpretation of the claims that reads limitations from the applicant’s specification into the claim and examiners are not supposed to read limitations from the specification into the claims. It is also true, that an examiner could interpret the limitation “wherein the computing apparatus is further configured to register a first evaluation information based on the first evaluation in the database for the vendor” in a manner that includes “the first evaluation information based on the first evaluation” to be information that is obtained not from the evaluation itself but from the entire communication packet that encompasses the packet. This type of interpretation is not supported by the applicant’s disclosure and, as such, would result in a 112(a) rejection, even on the claims as originally filed. However, the examiner has instead given the limitation its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, which means the first evaluation information is information obtained from the first evaluation itself. Since the first evaluation need only include an evaluator identifier, a vendor identifier, a first group identifier, or an evaluator rating. When the first evaluation information obtained from the is only a vendor ID, it can register the evaluation in associated with the vendor but cannot perform the remaining steps because it cannot ascertain the fist group identifier. Likewise, if the only type of first evaluation information is the first group ID, then the applicant’s invention could not register the evaluation in association with the vendor because there is no way to ascertain the vendor for which the evaluation was made. As such, the claims are clearly indefinite and not merely claiming breadth. For the sake of argument, lets broaden the terms even further. Let’s assume the evaluation is a blank document with a single input field that allows the evaluator to type in any information they wish such as a paragraph as a single input. First, the applicant’s disclosure does not support parsing written prose to obtain a vendor identification, a first group identifier, a first evaluator identifier, and/or a first evaluator rating which would have resulted in a 112(a) rejection (even on the originally filed claims). Second, even though one could type whatever the wanted into such a field, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this input information is still one or more of an evaluator identifier, a vendor identifier, a first group identifier, or an evaluator rating. Additionally, the fact that one might input an evaluation for a vendor does not such an evaluation includes the vendor identification. The phrase “for a vendor” is an intended result associated with the inputting evaluation information. The invention does not have any means of guaranteeing that the inputted evaluation information is actually for the vendor, or even who that vendor might be. There is no support in the applicant’s disclosure of an evaluation inherently require pre-encoded information identifying the vendor nor that the evaluator must type the vendor name along with the input. This brings us back to the same indefinite issue describe above. With only one type of said information the claim cannot be performed. As such, the issue is most assuredly an indefinite issue and not a breadth issue because no matter how broadly one interprets the claim, claim 1 cannot be performed unless the first evaluation completed by the first evaluator includes at least a vendor identifier and a first group identifier to which the evaluator belongs; the evaluation completed by the second evaluator includes at least the vendor identifier and a second group identifier to which the second evaluator belongs; the first browser request include an identifier of the first group; and the second browser request includes an identifier of the second group. This would require an extremely narrow interpretation of the claims and, as such, is not an issue of claim breadth but indefiniteness because to arrive at such a narrow interpretation of the claims one must assume that this information is inherently required to be present in an evaluation or inherently included as part of an input by an evaluator even though the applicant’s disclosure does not require such inherency. The issues only get more pronounced when one considered the other claims of the case, including the other independent claims, because the applicant’s invention requires the initial input to inherently include other information which is not required by the applicant’s disclosure such at least one numerical rating provided in the evaluation such that averages can be obtained. As such, it is clear that the issue is indeed that the claims are indefinite and not merely broad. The applicant’s argument regarding MPEP 2164.01 is moot, as MPEP 2164.01 is dealing with the enablement requirement under 112(a) and has nothing to do with either the 35 USC 112(b) rejection raised by the examiner, nor the 112(a) written description possession issues that would arise if the examiner interpreted the limitation in a broader fashion than disclosed in the applicant’s disclosure. A 112(a) written description issue regarding possession, should one be made in the case, is a separate and distinct from the enablement requirement as per the “Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance with 35 U.S.C. and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications” issued on January 21, 2011 and MPEP 2161.01, “the first paragraph of § 112 contains a written description requirement that is separate and distinct from the enablement requirement. To satisfy the written description requirement, the specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention”. However, the issue is moot since neither a 112(a)-enablement rejection subject to MPEP 2164.08 nor a 112(a) written description rejection based on possession (not subject to MPEP 2164.08) has been raised in the rejection because the examiner has interpreted the claimed limitations using their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the applicant’s disclosure. As such, the applicant’s arguments with regards to MPEP 2164.08 are not convincing. Thus, the examiner has found none applicant’s arguments, with regards to the 35 USC 112(b) rejections, convincing and the rejections have been maintained.
The applicant argues, with regards to Step 2a, Prong 1 of the 35 USC 101 rejections, that the claims do not recite business relations because the claims do not require evaluating an agent or vendor, but rather recite transmitting such information between apparatuses. The examiner disagrees. The claims absolutely require obtaining an evaluation of a vendor from one person in a company and providing the information to another person in the company. Thus the claim are, without a doubt, reciting a business relation which is probably why independent claims 1 and 5 specifically recite “An evaluation system that evaluates a vendor who has applied for a business” and claim 8 specifically recites “A method for evaluating a vendor”. The individual steps of the claim describe how the data in an evaluation input by an evaluator is obtained and shared with others. As such, even if one were to conclude that the evaluations themselves are not made by the applicant’s, the sharing of such evaluation information within an organization would still be considered business relations because it is describing the relationship between various parts of an organization and how data regarding vendor evaluations is shared between these various parts of an organization. As such, the claims are reciting an abstract idea. Contrary to the applicant assertion to the contrary, the claim would recite an abstract idea if it only recited, for example in claim 1: “wherein the first evaluator apparatus is configure to receive an input of a first evaluation for the vendor from one or more evaluators belonging to the first group” because the applicant’s invention is receiving data associated with a first evaluation for a vendor which is a business relation because gathering data about a vendor is part of an abstract idea that recites a “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity”. As the applicant’s aptly states every other limitation merely requires performing “insignificant extra-solution activity”. Thus, even if the examiner were to somehow be convinced that the remainder of the claim was not reciting an abstract idea (which he is not), the claims would fail to overcome the 35 USC rejection because it merely performs insignificant extra-solution activity which is insufficient to transform an abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2 and insufficient to be considered significantly more under Step 2b.
The applicant argues, with regards to Step 2b, that the applicant’s invention recites a technical improvement that constitutes “significantly more” than the abstract idea. The examiner disagrees. First, it is confusing how on the one hand the applicant argues that the claims recite nothing more than computing devices receiving and transmitting data (e.g., insignificant extra-solution activity), and then purports this insignificant extra-solution activity could recite a technical improvement that constitutes “significantly more” under Step 2b. MPEP 2106 is pretty clear that insignificant extra-solution activity is incapable of transforming an abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2 and insufficient to be considered significantly more under Step 2b. Thus, the applicant’s arguments are not convincing. Second, in order to overcome a 35 USC 101 rejection under Step 2b, it is the “additional elements” of the claim that must be considered “significantly more” than the abstract idea. “Additional elements” are defined as those elements of a claim that are outside of the abstract idea itself. In the instant case, the only “additional elements” of the claims are a first evaluator apparatus, a second evaluator apparatus, an applicant apparatus, and a computing apparatus with a database. Thus, the claims do recite an arrangement of device comprising four general-purpose computers with generic computer components. As such, the examiner must consider these additional elements, both individually and as a whole, to determine whether they recite “significantly more” under Step 2b. Individually, they recite nothing more than four well understood, routine, and conventional general-purpose computers with generic computer components which are merely used to apply an abstract idea. Thus, individually, these additional elements cannot be considered “significantly more” under Step 2b. Considered, as a whole, the claim recites four well understood, routine, and conventional general-purpose computers with generic computer components, wherein three of the general-purpose computers (i.e., the first evaluator apparatus, the second evaluator apparatus, and the applicant apparatus) perform only the insignificant extra-solution activities of the abstract idea comprised of receiving data, transmitting data, displaying data, or storing data, wherein the only apparatus which can be said to perform a significant step of the abstract idea is the computing apparatus because it must make decision regarding whether it is allowed to transmit data based on rules associated with transmitting data. As such, the only “additional element” that performs a significant step of the abstract idea is the computing apparatus upon which the significant step(s) of the abstract idea are merely being applied which is insufficient to be considered “significantly more” under Step 2b. Thus, it is clear that, when considered as a whole, the “additional elements” of the claims are insufficient to be considered “significantly more” under Step 2b. Instead, any purported improvement, whether the applicant considers them to be a technical improvement or not, is obtained by practicing the abstract idea which is merely applied by the “additional elements” of the claim. Improvements of this nature, even technical improvement, are improvement to an abstract idea which is an improvement in ineligible subject matter (see SAP v. Investpic decision: Page 2, line 22 through Page 3, line 13 - Even assuming that the algorithms claimed are groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant, the claims are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter because they are nothing but a series of mathematical algorithms based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those algorithms. Thus, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausible alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of this nature is ineligible for patenting; and Page 10, lines 18-24 - Even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is limited to particular content, or a particular source, that limitations does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.). In order for a technical improvement to transform an abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2 the technical improvement must be rooted in the ”additional elements” of the clam in a manner other than merely applying the abstract idea using the “additional elements”. Likewise, in order to be considered “significantly more” than an abstract idea under Step 2b, it is the additional elements of the claim that must be considered “significantly more” in a manner other than merely applying the abstract idea using the “additional elements”. Therefore, the applicant’s arguments are not convincing and the rejections have been maintained.
The applicant argues, with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejections, that Powers and Hayashitani do not disclose “when the computing apparatus receives from a transmission source a browsing request in a first communication established by identification information that identifies a person belonging to the first group, the computing apparatus is configure to transmit the first evaluation information to the transmission source of the first communication and not transmit the second evaluation information to the transmission source of the first communications. The examiner disagrees. Based on the applicant’s argument it appears that the applicant is reading limitation into the claims that are not currently present. According to the argued limitation, the references of Powers and Hayashitani as combined need only teach receiving a browsing requires from a transmission source, identifying the person initiating the browsing request belongs to a specific group that is able to receive the first evaluation information, and transmitting the first evaluation information. This is exactly what Powers is teaching in Column 11, line 4 through Column 12, line 1; Column 3, lines 5-38 and Column 6, lines 45-60; Column 4, line 28 through Column 4, line 41; Column 13, line 43 through Column 14, line 18; and Column 7, line 50 through Column 9, line 8 where the access to the stored data is based on privilege tables and class of service assignment tables which used to determine the level of access granted to each user with regards to charting; reporting and reviewing evaluation data. Based on these disclosures, should the browser request come from a user that only has access to data associated the first group, then only the first evaluation would be transmitted. Likewise, if they don’t have access to data associated with the second group then the second evaluations would not be transmitted. Thus, the limitations of the claims as currently written have been met. The fact that should the person have access privileges to both the first group and the second group they would receive both the first and second evaluations is immaterial when using Powers to reject the claims. It is merely an additional disclosure of an additional embodiment which does not render the fact that Powers teaches the claimed embodiment moot. Thus, the applicant’s arguments are not convincing and the rejections have been maintained.
The applicant argues, with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejections, that Powers is related only to performance evaluations within an organization, and within specific groups themselves, thus there is no reason to combine the composite score of an external medical facility in Hayashitani. The examiner strongly disagrees. The applicant appears to be misconstruing the prior art of Powers. In Powers, the evaluations need not only be performance evaluations within an organization and within a specific group itself. As the examiner noted in the interview, Powers discloses performing evaluations for employees based on the agency from which the agent was hired. In this way, the performance of the agents may be compared based the agency from which they were hired. As such, Powers is disclosing the evaluating of an external agency. Furthermore, noting in Powers requires that such an evaluation only be for individuals within a specific group itself. The disclosure in Powers allows for a temp or group of temps hired from one agency i be compared to a temp or group of temps hired in a different agency without limiting the comparison to a specific department of the organization. This is clear from at least column 7, lines 14-36 where it state “the performance of the agents may be compared based the agency from which they were hired”. This disclosure is a disclosure of evaluation the quality of a the agency from which one group was hired being compared to the quality of the agency from which another group was hired and is not limited to a specific group within the organization that hired temps from such an agency. While such a comparison within specific groups of the organization would be certain possible given the disclosure of Powers, Powers does not limit the comparison to only specific groups themselves. Since, Powers is not limited in the manner argued by the applicant, the argument regarding combining Hayashitani is not convincing. Furthermore, the information gathered by Hayashitani is not limited to outside facilities it can include obtaining evaluations from external customers regarding interactions they had with the facility itself. Thus, whether or not Powers discloses obtaining evaluations of an employee with customers, such a combination would not be prohibited, since such external evaluations are is a well-known method of evaluating an employee’s performance. Hence, the rationale for combining the prior art of Hayashitani would still be present. Thus, the rejections have been maintained.
The applicant’s argues that the examiner’s contention that Hayashitani only being used to teach multiple evaluation inputs from different sources and not access control exacerbates the improprieties of the rejection. The examiner disagrees. The applicant appears to be reading limitations into the claims that are not present. The ability for a person in the accounting department calling companies that interact with a temp person working in the accounting département to obtain an evaluation of how these companies feel about said employee and/or employees from this temp agency. As is an accounting manager pooling employees about how they believe the temp person or temp people from a specific temp agency. In both of these, case the “evaluator” providing the input can still be an employee of the organization itself, that is inputting an evaluation of the employee or temp agency based on the information obtained. Nothing in the claims require that the “evaluator” be a member of a first group that it outside the organization. Likewise, nothing in the claims requires the member of the second group be outside the organization. So a sales manager contacting customer to find out how their interaction from this a temp sales associate employee or temp sales associate employees hired from the same temp agency as the accounting temps went, would be a second group different from the first group, both within the same organization, that obtain information and input evaluations about the peoples hired from said temp agency. The only time the purported inconsistency could occur is if a single organization was not able to provide access controls to a person outside the organization, and the claim require that the evaluator that inputs the evaluations be someone that is not an employee of the organization. Such, a limitations are neither recited nor required in the claims as currently written. Thus, the combination does not exacerbate any issues associated with teaching of Powers and Hayashitani. The access controls disclosed in Powers work in the manner required by the claims, as currently written, irrespective of where the evaluator obtains the data they input into the evaluation. Thus, whether these evaluators within the organization obtained information from parties external to the organization as disclosed by Hayashitani and then enter said information; obtain the information from sources within the organization and enter them; or they formulated their own evaluations based on their own opinions, the access controls of Powers would still control who else might be able to see such evaluations. As such, the combination of Powers and Hayashitani are completely consistent with the ability of an evaluator within the organization gather information from external sources and inputting this information. Therefore, the applicant’s arguments are not convincing and the rejections have been maintained.
The applicant argues that Powers does not disclose access controls related to a vendor who has applied for a business. The notes that the applicant’s claims do not require access controls related to a vendor that has applied for a business. Thus, it is immaterial whether Powers discloses such a limitation. Instead, the applicant invention merely requires there be access control associated with different groups within an organization that input evaluation information associated with a vendor which is much different than a claim that requires access controls be implements for employees of a vendor or the vendor itself. The limitations required by the claims as currently written is disclosed by the combination of the Powers and Hayashitani as cited by the examiner. Should the applicant amend the claims to require there be access controls for employees of the vendor or the vendor itself, then the examiner will need to consider such newly added claim limitations and whether the disclosure of Powers and Hayashitani disclose such an arrangement or alternatively determine whether it would be obvious to combine an additional reference that teaches such a limitation with the references of Powers and Hayashitani, as currently combined. However, until such limitations are added to the claims, the applicant’s arguments are not convincing and 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.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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