DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patents No. 11,694,250 and 12,100,033. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are anticipated by the patented claims.
Reasons for Eligibility and Allowability over the Prior Art
The claims are patent eligible because they constitute significantly more than that abstract idea and integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and the claims represent an improvement to management system technology. The claims recite additional elements including a computer system, a data store, a first graphical user interface, a second graphical user interface, fields configured to receive specified search parameters, and provide to the service user, through the first graphical user interface, a service provider profile, wherein the service provider profile is automatically provided to the service user in real-time response to the received search parameters. Together these additional elements integrate the abstract idea of facilitating communication (Specification ¶0020) into a practical application that utilizes the recited hardware and improves management system technology. The claims add other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment to transform the judicial exception into patent eligible subject matter. The claims are not the mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer because the claims recite details as to how the solution is accomplished, do not merely invoke computers as a tool to perform an existing process, and the claims apply to a particular application in the specific field of labor marketplace management systems. There is no evidence that the claim recitations are well-understood, routine, and conventional. The claims do not recite insignificant extra-solution activity because the limitations are core to the solution of the invention as described in the specification. In consideration of all the factors the claims recite patent eligible subject matter.
The prior art includes Rice et al., US PG Pub 2006/0184381, which teaches a computer-implemented method and system for matching a consumer to a home service provider but does not teach that the service provider is to collected a digital photograph via a second graphical user interface of a labor marketplace exchange computing system, where the digital photograph is associated with a service request that was transmitted to the service provider or to electronically provide to the service user the at least one document associated with the documented skillset of the service provider identified by the service provider profile. The prior art also includes Holloran, US PG Pub 2006/0034494 A1, which teaches personal identity data management but does not teach that the digital photograph is collected via a second graphical user interface or associated with a service request that was transmitted to the user or to electronically provide to the service user the at least one document associated with the documented skillset of the service provider identified by the service provider profile.
Non-patent literature Cesarini, M., et al. teaches a marketplace for the labor market but does not teach through an input to the fields of the first graphical user interface provided by the labor marketplace exchange computing system, search parameters from the service user for the service request, wherein the received search parameters identify a type of equipment. The Examiner further emphasizes the claims as a whole and hereby asserts that the totality of the evidence fails to set forth, either explicitly or implicitly, an appropriate rationale for further modification of the evidence at hand to arrive at the claimed invention. The combination of features as claimed would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as combining various references from the totality of the evidence to reach the combination of features as claimed would require a substantial reconstruction of Applicant’s claimed invention relying on improper hindsight bias.
It is thereby asserted by the Examiner that, in light of the above and in further deliberation over all of the evidence at hand, that the claims are allowable as the evidence at hand does not anticipate the claims and does not render obvious any further modification of the references to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER B SEIBERT whose telephone number is (571)272-5549. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeff Smith can be reached at 571-272-6763. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER B SEIBERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688