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 . 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.
Status of the Claims
The pending claims in the present application are claims 1-16 and 18-20 of the “AMENDMENT AND REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION” of 21 January 2026 (hereinafter referred to as the “Amendment/Request”).
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 1-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The paragraphs below provide rationales for the rejection. The rationales are based on the multi-step subject matter eligibility test outlined in MPEP 2106.
Step 1 of the eligibility analysis involves determining whether a claim falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 USC 101. (See MPEP 2106.03(I).) That is, Step 1 asks whether a claim is to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. (See MPEP 2106.03(II).) The “method” of claims 1-14 and 18-20 constitutes a process under 35 USC 101, the “system” of claim 15 constitutes a machine under the statute, and the “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” of claim 16 constitutes a manufacture under the statute. Accordingly, claims 1-16 and 18-20 meet the criteria of Step 1 of the eligibility analysis. The claims, however, fail to meet the criteria of subsequent steps of the eligibility analysis, as explained in the paragraphs below.
The next step of the eligibility analysis, Step 2A, involves determining whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.04(II).) This step asks whether a claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea. (See id.) Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry. (See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A).) Prong One and Prong Two are addressed below.
In the context of Step 2A of the eligibility analysis, Prong One asks whether a claim recites an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon. (See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1).) Using claim 1 as an example, the claim recites the following abstract idea limitations:
“A ... method of proposing a coach to a coachee, the method comprising: ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... confidentially obtain preference information from the coachee including at least one of a preferred mother tongue, an age range, and a gender of a coach; ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... transmitting ... data representing the obtained preference information ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... receiving ... the data representing the obtained preference information ..., and authenticating access ... through an identity-management service; ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... executing ... a matching algorithm ... to process the obtained preference information; ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... maintaining ... a pool of coach records, each coach record including established property data of a coach, the established property data comprising profile attributes and training or certification information; ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... storing ... business-intelligence data usable to generate or update the established property data ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... retrieving ... the pool of coach records ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... comparing ... the established property data of the coach records with the obtained preference information; ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... identifying ... one or more coaches whose established property data corresponds to the obtained preference information; ...” - _ See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... ranking ... the identified coaches according to the established property data; ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... generating ... structured output data representing at least one profile of the identified coaches; ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... transmitting ... the structured output data ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... rendering ... a results display comprising: ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... a heading region identifying coach matches and showing thumbnail portraits of the proposed coaches, and for each proposed coach: ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... a profile panel including at least one of an image of the coach for visual identification, a name label displaying the coach's name, a specialty field identifying an area of coaching expertise, ... a descriptive text field presenting a summary of the coach's background or coaching philosophy, and ... additional information about the coach including further biography or experience details; and ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... enabling ... the coachee to review, filter, and select among the proposed coaches.” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
The above-listed limitations of claim 1, when applying their broadest reasonable interpretations in light of their context in the claim as a whole, fall under enumerated groupings of abstract ideas outlined in MPEP 2106.04(a). For example, limitations of the claim can be characterized as: commercial interactions, including advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors (associated with, among other things, matching coaching customers to coaching providers); and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (associated with, among other things, matching coachees to coaches), which fall under the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). Limitations of the claim also can be characterized as: concepts performed in the human mind, including observation (e.g., the recited “obtain,” “transmitting,” “receiving,” “maintaining,” “storing,” “identifying,” “rendering,” and “enabling” steps), and evaluation and/or judgment (e.g., the recited “comparing,” “identifying,” ranking,” “rendering,” and “enabling” steps), which fall under the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). Accordingly, for at least these reasons, claim 1 fails to meet the criteria of Step 2A, Prong One of the eligibility analysis.
In the context of Step 2A of the eligibility analysis, Prong Two asks if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. (See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2).) Continuing to use claim 1 as an example, the claim recites the following additional element limitations:
The claimed “method” is “computer-implemented” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “obtained” is performed by “executing, by a client application on a web or smartphone device, a graphical user interface to” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “transmitting” is “by the client application over a communication network” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “receiving” is performed “by an application-programming-interface service coupled to the communication network” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “receiving” is “from the client application” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
“... invoking, by the application-programming-interface service, a computing platform implemented as a serverless execution environment within the cloud-based computing infrastructure; ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “executing” is performed “by the computing platform” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “maintaining” is performed “by a storage service coupled to the computing platform” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “storing” is “by a data-warehouse service coupled to the computing platform” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “property data” is “maintained in the storage service” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “retrieving” is performed “by the computing platform” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “comparing” is performed “by the computing platform” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “identifying” is performed “by the computing platform” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “ranking” is performed “by the computing platform” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “generating” is performed “by the computing platform” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “transmitting” is “by the application-programming interface service over the communication network” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “output data” is “generated by the computing platform to the client application” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “rendering” is “by the client application on the graphical user interface” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “profile panel” further including “a set of selectable language icons that, when selected, filter or display the coach's information in a corresponding language, a control for initiating playback of an introductory video providing a prerecorded audiovisual introduction of the coach” and “a control that, when selected, expands the descriptive text field to display” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “enabling” is performed “with the graphical user interface” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The above-listed additional element limitations of claim 1, when applying their broadest reasonable interpretations in light of their context in the claim as a whole, are analogous to: accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer, mere automation of manual processes, instructions to display two sets of information on a computer display in a non-interfering manner, without any limitations specifying how to achieve the desired result, and arranging transactional information on a graphical user interface in a manner that assists traders in processing information more quickly, which courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality (see MPEP 2106.05(a)(I)); a commonplace business method being applied on a general purpose computer, gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, and selecting a particular generic function for computer hardware to perform from within a range of fundamental or commonplace functions performed by the hardware, which courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology (see MPEP 2106.05(a)(II)); a general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions, and merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions, which do not qualify as a particular machine or use thereof (see MPEP 2106.05(b)(I)); a machine that is merely an object on which the method operates, which does not integrate the exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(b)(II)); use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method, which does not integrate a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(b)(III)); transformation of an intangible concept such as a contractual obligation or mental judgment, which is not likely to provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(c)); remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, which courts have found to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome (see MPEP 2106.05(f)); use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea, a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, generating a second menu from a first menu and sending the second menu to another location as performed by generic computer components, and requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, which courts have found to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process (see MPEP 2106.05(f)); mere data gathering in the form of obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify transactions and consulting and updating an activity log, and selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated in the form of selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in an environment, for collection, analysis, and display, which courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)); and specifying that the abstract idea of monitoring audit log data relates to transactions or activities that are executed in a computer environment, because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer, which courts have described as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). For at least these reasons, claim 1 fails to meet the criteria of Step 2A, Prong Two of the eligibility analysis.
The next step of the eligibility analysis, Step 2B, asks whether a claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(II).) The step involves identifying whether there are any additional elements in the claim beyond the judicial exceptions, and evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they contribute an inventive concept. (See id.) The ineligibility rationales applied at Step 2A, Prong Two, also apply to Step 2B. (See id.) For all of the reasons covered in the analysis performed at Step 2A, Prong Two, claim 1 fails to meet the criteria of Step 2B. Further, claim 1 also fails to meet the criteria of Step 2B because at least some of the additional elements are analogous to: receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, electronic recordkeeping, and storing and retrieving information in memory, which courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, and as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). As a result, claim 1 is rejected under 35 USC 101 as ineligible for patenting.
Regarding claims 2-14 and 18-20, the claims depend from claim 1, and expand upon limitations introduced by claim 1. The dependent claims are rejected at least for the same reasons as claim 1. For example, the dependent claims recite abstract idea elements similar to the abstract idea elements of claim 1, that fall under the same abstract idea groupings as the abstract idea elements of claim 1 (e.g., the “wherein executing the matching algorithm comprises executing logic” of claim 2, the “wherein the logic is deployed” of claim 3, the “wherein the logic is exposed ..., and ... the coach or the coachee is authenticated” of claim 4, the ” wherein the established property data are derived from at least one of the following sources: the profile of the coach ..., completion of courses, a prior agreement concluded with the coach ..., a survey conducted among the coaches, established customer relationships ..., content ..., business intelligence” of claim 5, the “wherein ... applies one or more conditions for filtering coaches unready for matching such that coaches whose established property data fail to satisfy the one or more conditions are excluded from execution of the matching algorithm” of claim 6, the “wherein, when multiple coaches are identified ... as corresponding to the coachee, ... ranks the identified coaches based upon the established property data” of claim 7, the “wherein, according to the established property data, one among the identified coaches is accorded top priority in the ranking” of claim 8, the “wherein, when a number of identified coaches in the ranking exceeds a predetermined number, the predetermined number of highest-ranking coaches is selected” of claim 9, the “in response to a request received from the coachee ..., the number of selected highest-ranking coaches is increased” of claim 10, the “wherein, for each of the identified coaches, a respective score is computed from the established property data ... and the ranking is based upon the respective scores” of claim 11, the “wherein ... constrains execution of the matching algorithm for specific clients based on privacy, data protection, or confidentiality requirements” of claim 12, the “wherein ... constrains execution of the matching algorithm for specific clients to ensure compliance with applicable laws relating to independent contractors” of claim 13, the “wherein ... constrains execution of the matching algorithm for specific clients to a predetermined sub-pool of the coaches” of claim 14, the “wherein the preference information includes the preferred mother tongue, age range, and gender of the coach” of claim 18, and the “wherein the profile of an identified coach is presented” of claim 19). The dependent claims recite further additional elements that are similar to the additional elements of claim 1, that fail to warrant eligibility for the same reasons as the additional elements of claim 1 (e.g., the “expressed in a scripting language” of claim 2, the “using a storage service and executed by the computing platform” of claim 3, the “to the client application through the application programming interface service, and upon accessing the interface” of claim 4, the “created in the platform, ... in a custom web form, ... managed by a CRM suite, ... managed by a headless content management system, ... gathered from the data-warehouse service operated within the cloud-based computing infrastructure” of claim 5, the “computing platform” of claim 6, the “by the computing platform ... the computing platform” of claim 7, the “by the computing platform” of claim 8, the “by the computing platform” of claim 9, the “via the client application, ... by the computing platform” of claim 10, the “by the computing platform” of claim 11, the “computing platform” of claim 12, the “computing platform” of claim 13, the “computing platform” of claim 14, the “by the client application on the web or smartphone device” of claim 19, and the “wherein the scripting language is Python and the cloud-based computing infrastructure comprises an Amazon Web Services (AWS) infrastructure” of claim 20). Accordingly, claims 2-14 and 18-20 also are rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claim 15, while the claim is of different scope relative to claim 1, the claim recites limitation similar to the limitations of claim 1. As such, the rejection rationales applied to reject claim 1 also apply for purposes of rejecting claim 15. Claim 15 is, therefore, also rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claim 16, while the claim is of different scope relative to claims 1 and 15, the claim recites limitation similar to the limitations of claims 1 and 15. As such, the rejection rationales applied to reject claims 1 and 15 also apply for purposes of rejecting claim 16. Claim 16 is, therefore, also rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5, 7, 8, 11, 15, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2022/0148699 A1 to Kogan et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Kogan”), in view of U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2006/0047615 A1 to Ravin et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Ravin”), and further in view of WIPO Int’l Pub. No. 2019/234731 A1 to Lubash (hereinafter referred to as “Lubash”).
Regarding claim 1, Kogan discloses the following limitations:
“A computer-implemented method of proposing a coach to a coachee, the method comprising: ...” - Kogan discloses, “Systems and methods for matching a client and a coach” (Abstract), and “computer system implemented tools” (para. [0015]). The methods implemented by the computer system for matching clients and coaches, in Kogan, read on the recited limitation.
“... executing, by a client application on a web or smartphone device, a graphical user interface to confidentially obtain preference information from the coachee ...” - Kogan discloses “a client application” (para. [0012]); “a mobile device,” “a mobile phone,” and “subject preferences” (para. [0153]), “a user interface” (para. [0154]), and “a set of attributes” (Figure 4A). Operation of the client application on the mobile phone, to generate the user interface for obtaining attributes and subject preferences from users, in Kogan, reads on the recited limitation.
“... transmitting, by the client application over a communication network, data representing the obtained preference information to a cloud-based computing infrastructure; ...” - See the aspects of Kogan that have been cited above. Kogan also discloses, “the functionality of the client device 300 may be spread across any number of networked computers and/or reside on each of several networked computers and/or by hosted on one or more virtual machines and/or containers at a remote location accessible across a communications network (e.g., communications network 106)” (para. [0084]), and “any of the illustrated devices and systems can in fact constitute several computer systems that are linked together in a network or be a virtual machine and/or container in a cloud-computing environment” (para. [0087]). Sending data, by the client application via the communications network, about attributes and subject preferences, to the cloud-computing environment, in Kogan, reads on the recited limitation.
“... receiving, by an application-programming-interface service coupled to the communication network, the data representing the obtained preference information from the client application, and authenticating access to the cloud-based computing infrastructure through an identity-management service; ...” - See the aspects of Kogan that have been cited above. Kogan also discloses, “providing a plurality of user login information, such as a password, an address (e.g., E-mail address, physical address, etc.), a personal name (e.g., a given name, a username, etc.), and the like” (para. [0101]), and “the request is in the form of an application programming interface (API) call to the wellness system 200 from a client device 300 associated with the client” (para. [0173]). Receiving, by the API coupled to the communications network, data about attributes and subject preferences, from the client application, and allowing access to the cloud-computing environment through the user login and password functionality, in Kogan, reads on the recited limitation.
“... invoking, by the application-programming-interface service, a computing platform implemented as a serverless execution environment within the cloud-based computing infrastructure; ...” - See the aspects of Kogan that have been cited above. Providing, by the API, the wellness system in the form of the virtual machine and container in the cloud-computing environment, in Kogan, reads on the recited limitation.
“... executing, by the computing platform, a matching algorithm written in a scripting language to process the obtained preference information; ...” - See the aspects of Kogan that have been cited above. Kogan also discloses, “the systems and methods of the present disclosure provide matching the respective client with one or more coaches and/or one or more wellness programs using a plurality of computational models” (para. [0014]), and “implemented in hardware, software, firmware, or a combination thereof” (para. [0151]). Executing, by the wellness system, matching using computational models composed of software code, to process the attributes and subject preferences, in Kogan, reads on the recited limitation.
“... maintaining, by ... the computing platform, a pool of coach records, each coach record including established property data of a coach, the established property data comprising profile attributes ...” - See the aspects of Kogan that have been cited above. Kogan also discloses, “one or more user profile attributes (e.g., geographic region, age, wealth, expertise, willingness to pay, gender, profession, lifestyle, etc.)” (para. [0011]), and “a plurality of coach profiles. The plurality of coaching profiles is each user profile in the plurality of user profiles of the wellness system that is associated with a coach of the wellness system 200” (para. [0264]). The wellness system maintaining coaching profiles, each coach profile including attributes of the coach, in Kogan, reads on the recited limitation.
“... comparing, by the computing platform, the established property data of the coach records with the obtained preference information; ...” - See the aspects of Kogan that have been cited above. Kogan also discloses, “processing the plurality of coaching profiles, processing the plurality of wellness programs, processing the set of attributes assigned to a respective client (e.g., block 424 of FIG. 4D), considering each respective result provided by a corresponding computational model” (para. [0130]), and “he plurality of computational models 222 includes a plurality of one or more correlation models, one or more comparison models” (para. [0196]). The wellness system using comparison models on the coaching profiles and the attributes and subject preferences, in Kogan, reads on the recited limitation.
“... identifying, by the computing platform, one or more coaches whose established property data corresponds to the obtained preference information; ...” - See the aspects of Kogan that have been cited above. The wellness system identifying coaches having coaching profiles that are a match for the attributes and subject preferences, in Kogan, reads on the recited limitation.
“... ranking, by the computing platform, the identified coaches according to the established property data; ...” - See the aspects of Kogan that have been cited above. Kogan also discloses, “ranking models” (para. [0039]), and “the total user historical performance includes a ranking as an additional source of data for the wellness system 200, such as to determine a popularity result of a respective wellness program and/or a respective coach using the plurality of computation models 222. In some embodiments, the plurality of coaches is ranked based on: a number of clients follow the corresponding coach; a number of sessions deemed completed for the corresponding coach, a number of wellness programs deemed completed and/or associated with the corresponding coach, a score of activity engaging with the wellness system 200 and/or a communication channel, or a combination thereof” (para. [0113]). The wellness system ranking coaches based on various characteristics, in Kogan, reads on the recited limitation.
“... generating, by the computing platform, structured output data representing at least one profile of the identified coaches; ...” - Kogan discloses, “generating, for display at the client device 300, a listing of the set of the at least one coaching profile” (para. [0228]). The wellness system generating the listing of the set of coaching profiles, in Kogan, reads on the recited limitation.
“... transmitting, by the application-programming-interface service over the communication network, the structured output data generated by the computing platform to the client application; and ...” - See the aspects of Kogan that have been cited above. The API sending the listing of the set of coaching profiles from the wellness system to the client application, in Kogan, reads on the recited limitation.
“... rendering, by the client application on the graphical user interface, a results display comprising: ...” - See the aspects of Kogan that have been cited above. Displaying, by the client application on the graphical user interface of the client device, the listing of the set of coaching profiles, in Kogan, reads on the recited limitation.
The combination of Kogan and Ravin (hereinafter referred to as “Kogan/Ravin”) teaches limitations below of claim 1 that do not appear to be disclosed in their entirety by Kogan:
The claimed “preference information” includes “at least one of a preferred mother tongue, an age range, and a gender of a coach” - Ravin discloses, “Requestor attributes can be, but are not limited to, language preference” and “”human resource records can be accessed and demographic records may be accessed to determine language and other preferences (para. [0033]). The language preference, in Ravin, reads on the recited limitation.
The claimed “maintaining” is “by a storage service coupled to the computing platform” - Ravin discloses, “information about available experts that may be resident in expert database 138 or, also optionally, from external systems 128” (para. [0024]), and “In the simplest example, the expert attributes are stored, locally, e.g., in expert database 138 in FIG. 1, for access in 1466. In a more complex example, attributes stored in the expert database 138 are supplemented with information from remote data sources 1468 and/or from external sources 1470” (para. [0041]). Use of expert databases for storage, in Ravin, reads on the recited limitation.
The claimed “established property data” includes “training or certification information” - Ravin discloses, “Queries to external sources 1454 include, for example, conducting an Internet search on the requestor to reveal areas of expertise, level of education and etc. Similarly, accessing and analyzing other indirect data sources may prove sufficient for deriving attributes. These indirect data sources may include, for example, third party certifications”) (para. [0033]), and “Experts are evaluated in response to the attributes provided in step 1458 of FIG. 3. Preferably, the evaluation includes, for example, but is not limited to, information about language, location, degrees, academic record, publications, certifications” (para. [0040]). The information about third party certifications, in Ravin, reads on the recited limitation.
“... storing, by a data-warehouse service coupled to the computing platform, business-intelligence data usable to generate or update the established property data maintained in the storage service; ...” - See the aspects of Ravin that have been cited above. Operation of the remote data sources and external sources, including storing new supplemental data with respect to attributes, in Ravin, reads on the recited limitation.
“... retrieving, by the computing platform, the pool of coach records from the storage service; ...” - See the aspects of Ravin that have been cited above. Retrieving data about experts from the database, in Ravin, reads on the recited limitation.
Ravin discloses “A knowledge management system allocating expert resources” (Abstract), similar to the claimed invention and to Kogan. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the coach profile data, of Kogan, to be stored by databases and the like, and to include certifications, as in Ravin, for simplicity (para. [0041] of Ravin) and to facilitate evaluations of experts (para. [0040] of Ravin).
The combination of Kogan, Ravin, and Lubash (hereinafter referred to as “Kogan/Ravin/Lubash”) teaches limitations below of claim 1 that do not appear to be taught in their entirety by Kogan/Ravin:
“... a heading region identifying coach matches and showing thumbnail portraits of the proposed coaches, and for each proposed coach: ...” - See the aspects of Kogan that have been cited above. Kogan discloses displaying listings of coaches, but lacks certain details. Lubash discloses, “Screen #16 may allow the mother to browse, view and/or select one or more of such profiles” (para. [0044]), “A matching module 125 searches for candidate profiles that comply with these conditions, and presents a list of candidate matches” (para. [0065]), and “Matches” (Fig. 9). The format of the displayed matches, showing images of the matches, of Lubash, when applied in the context of displaying matches, in Kogan, reads on the recited limitation.
“... a profile panel including at least one of an image of the coach for visual identification, a name label displaying the coach's name, a specialty field identifying an area of coaching expertise, a set of selectable language icons that, when selected, filter or display the coach's information in a corresponding language, a control for initiating playback of an introductory video providing a prerecorded audiovisual introduction of the coach, a descriptive text field presenting a summary of the coach's background or coaching philosophy, and a control that, when selected, expands the descriptive text field to display additional information about the coach including further biography or experience details; and ...” - See the aspects of Lubash that have been cited above. The labelling of the match with the name “Josh” (Fig. 9), in Lubash, reads on the recited limitation.
“... enabling with the graphical user interface the coachee to review, filter, and select among the proposed coaches.” See the aspects of Lubash that have been cited above. Lubash also discloses “Settings” (Fig. 9), and “command the system to filter or sort the profiles that she had already tagged as “interesting”, and to show to her now only those profiles that have the character traits of “confident”; and the system may accordingly filter or sort the list” (para. [0044]). Using the displayed settings elements to review, filter, and select matches, in Lubash, when applied in the context of matching coaches, in Kogan, reads on the recited limitation.
Lubash discloses “match-making” (Abstract), similar to the claimed invention and to Kogan/Ravin. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the display aspects, of Kogan/Ravin, to include the visual elements of the display, of Lubash, to facilitate match-making, per Lubash (para. [0044]).
Regarding claim 2, Kogan/Ravin/Lubash teaches the following limitations:
“The method of claim 1, wherein executing the matching algorithm comprises executing logic expressed in a scripting language.” - See the aspects of Kogan that have been cited above. Kogan discloses, “computational models” (para. [0070]), “comparison models” (para. [0196]), “software programs” (para. [0150]), and use of an “algorithm” (para. [0082]). Performing matching via use of computational models, comparison models, and associated algorithms, instituted by software programs, in Kogan, reads on the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 3, Kogan/Ravin/Lubash teaches the following limitations:
“The method of claim 2, wherein the logic is deployed using a storage service and executed by the computing platform.” - See the aspects of Kogan that have been cited above. Kogan also discloses, “Each of the above identified modules and applications correspond to a set of executable instructions for performing one or more functions described above and the methods described in the present disclosure (e.g., the computer-implemented methods and other information processing methods described herein, method 400 of FIGS. 4A through 4E, etc.). These modules (e.g., sets of instructions) need not be implemented as separate software programs, procedures or modules, and thus various subsets of these modules are, optionally, combined or otherwise re-arranged in various embodiments of the present disclosure. In some embodiments, the memory 392 optionally stores a subset of the modules and data structures identified above. Furthermore, in some embodiments, the memory 392 stores additional modules and data structures” (para. [0150]). Use of the modules and applications corresponding to executable instructions from memory via processing by the wellness system, in Kogan, reads on the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 4, Kogan/Ravin/Lubash teaches the following limitations:
“The method of claim 3, wherein the logic is exposed to the client application through the application programming interface service, and upon accessing the interface, the coach or the coachee is authenticated.” - See the aspects of Kogan that have been cited above. Use of software instructions by the client application via the application programming interface, such that upon using the interface, the coach and the client are required to provide a login and password, in Kogan, reads on the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 5, Kogan/Ravin/Lubash teaches the following limitations:
“The method of claim 4, wherein the established property data are derived from at least one of the following sources: the profile of the coach created in the platform, completion of courses, a prior agreement concluded with the coach in a custom web form, a survey conducted among the coaches, established customer relationships managed by a CRM suite, content managed by a headless content management system, business intelligence gathered from the data-warehouse service operated within the cloud-based computing infrastructure.” - See the aspects of Kogan that have been cited above. Data from the coach profiles generated in the wellness system, in Kogan, reads on the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 7, Kogan/Ravin/Lubash teaches the following limitations:
“The method of claim 1, wherein, when multiple coaches are identified by the computing platform as corresponding to the coachee, the computing platform ranks the identified coaches based upon the established property data.” - See the aspects of Kogan and Ravin that have been cited above. Kogan also discloses, “ranking models” (para. [0039]). The identification of matching coaches that correspond to the client, by the wellness system, along with use of ranking, in Kogan, reads on the recited “wherein, when multiple coaches are identified by the computing platform as corresponding to the coachee, the computing platform ranks” limitation. Kogan lacks specifics about the ranking. Ravin discloses, “the match may be evaluated, for example, but is not limited to, evaluating technical, communication and personal aspects of the match. Optionally, a threshold may be set for determining a satisfactory match. In step 1474, when more than one expert is found, the evaluation results may be optimized for cost, price, customer satisfaction, minimizing bench time and/or value of response. Further the evaluation may be constrained for maximum service times (e.g., no overtime this week) and/or maximum costs. This expert ranking may be done using a suitable method of determining a feasible solution to a mathematical optimization problem” (para. [0040]), “In step 1474 the comparison results are ranked by order of match success. In 1476 the comparison results are compared against a pre-established threshold and, those expert profiles whose success match is lower than the established threshold are removed from the list. In step 148 if at least one expert profile remains in the list after step 1476, the list is returned in step 150” (para. [0043]), and “means for ranking compared said expert profiles” (claim 9). The ranking of expert profiles based on optimization parameters, in Ravin, reads on the recited limitation.
The rationales for combining the teachings of the cited references, from the rejection of claim 1, also apply to this rejection of claim 7. Further, it would have been obvious, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to have modified the ranking aspects, of Kogan, to include the ranking aspects, of Lubash, for optimization and filtering, per Ravin (paras. [0040] and [0043]).
Regarding claim 8, Kogan/Ravin/Lubash teaches the following limitations:
“The method of claim 7, wherein, according to the established property data, one among the identified coaches is accorded top priority in the ranking by the computing platform.” - See the aspects of Ravin that have been cited above. The ranking of expert profiles, in Ravin, reads on the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 11, Kogan/Ravin/Lubash teaches the following limitations:
“The method of claim 7, wherein, for each of the identified coaches, a respective score is computed from the established property data by the computing platform and the ranking is based upon the respective scores.” - See the aspects of Ravin that have been cited above. Ravin also discloses, “preferably, the comparison step 1472 proceeds to evaluate all experts, determining a degree of matching success to each” (para. [0042]).
Regarding claim 15, while the claim is of different scope relative to claim 1, the claim recites limitation similar to those recited by claim 1. As such, the rationales applied in the rejection of claim 1 also apply for purposes of rejecting claim 15. Claim 15 is, therefore, also rejected under 35 USC 103 as obvious in view of Kogan/Ravin/Lubash.
Regarding claim 16, while the claim is of different scope relative to claims 1 and 15, the claim recites limitations similar to those recited by claims 1 and 15. As such, the rationales applied to reject claims 1 and 15 also apply for purposes of rejecting claim 16. Limitations recited by claim 16 that do not appear to have a counterpart in claims 1 and 15, such as the preamble hardware limitations of claim 16, are disclosed by the Kogan/Ravin/Lubash (see para. [0051] of Kogan). Claim 16 is, therefore, also rejected under 35 USC 103 as obvious in view of Kogan/Ravin/Lubash.
Regarding claim 19, Kogan/Ravin/Lubash teaches the following limitations:
“The method of claim 1, wherein the profile of an identified coach is presented by the client application on the web or smartphone device.” - See the aspects of Kogan and Lubash that have been cited above. The listing of the set of coaching profiles, of Kogan, with the screen that presents the list of candidate matches, of Lubash, reads on the recited limitation.
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kogan, in view of Ravin, further in view of Lubash, and further in view of U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2020/0342462 A1 to Todd et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Todd”).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Kogan, Ravin, Lubash, and Todd (hereinafter referred to as “Kogan/Ravin/Lubash/Todd”) teaches limitations below that do not appear to be taught in their entirety by Kogan/Ravin/Lubash:
“The method of claim 1, wherein the computing platform applies one or more conditions for filtering coaches unready for matching such that coaches whose established property data fail to satisfy the one or more conditions are excluded from execution of the matching algorithm.” - Todd discloses, “if a customer service inquiry is to be resolved in real-time, then only those experts currently available are considered for matching. Matching Logic 155 may be configured to match inquiries to internal and/or external experts” (para. [0065]). The system filtering experts based on current availability before being considered for matching, in Todd, reads on the recited limitation.
Todd discloses managing experts (para. [0008]), and matching them with customers (para. [0065]), similar to the claimed invention and to Kogan/Ravin/Lubash. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the matching process, of Kogan/Ravin/Lubash, to include pre-matching filtering, as in Todd, to ensure timeliness by ensuring current availability, per Todd (para. [0065]).
Regarding claim 14, Kogan/Ravin/Lubash/Todd teaches the limitations below:
“The method of claim 1, wherein the computing platform constrains execution of the matching algorithm for specific clients to a predetermined sub-pool of the coaches.” - See the aspects of Todd that have been cited above. The matching of customers to experts currently available, in Todd, reads on the recited limitation. The rationales for combining the teachings of the cited references, from the rejection of claim 6 above, also apply to this rejection of claim 14.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kogan, in view of Ravin, further in view of Lubash, and further in view of U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2018/0190135 A1 to Robichaux et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Robichaux”).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Kogan, Ravin, Lubash, and Robichaux (hereinafter referred to as “Kogan/Ravin/Lubash/Robichaux”) teaches limitations below that do not appear to be taught in their entirety by Kogan/Ravin/Lubash:
“The method of claim 7, wherein, when a number of identified coaches in the ranking exceeds a predetermined number, the predetermined number of highest-ranking coaches is selected by the computing platform.” - Robichaux discloses, “At block 422, process 400 can provide ranked coaching matches. In various implementations, the provided coach matches can be a top number (e.g. top three) or to percentage (e.g. top 10%) of the match coaches or can be the coaches that have a compatibility score above a threshold” (para. [0049]). The provided coach matches being a top number, per the process instituted by the system, in Robichaux, reads on the recited limitation.
Robichaux discloses “a virtual coaching platform can analyze user and coach characteristics to determine suggested coaching partnerships” (Abstract), similar to the claimed invention and to Kogan/Ravin/Lubash. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the coach matching and ranking process, of Kogan/Ravin/Lubash, to include the top number feature, of Robichaux, to facilitate matches with the most compatibility, per Robichaux (para. [0049]).
Regarding claim 10, Kogan/Ravin/Lubash/Robichaux teaches the following limitations:
“The method of claim 9, wherein, in response to a request received from the coachee via the client application, the number of selected highest-ranking coaches is increased by the computing platform.” - Lubash discloses, “Limit matches 2 Per week” under “Settings” (Fig. 9). Use of the settings option for limiting the number of matches, in Lubash, when applied in the context of the matching and ranking of Kogan/Ravin/Lubash/Robichaux, reads on the recited limitation. The rationales for combining the teachings of the cited references, from claims 7 and 9, also apply for purposes of rejecting claim 10.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kogan, in view of Ravin, further in view of Lubash, and further in view of U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 7,167,855 B1 to Koenig (hereinafter referred to as “Koenig”).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Kogan, Ravin, Lubash and Koenig (hereinafter referred to as “Kogan/Ravin/Lubash/Koenig”) teaches limitations below that do not appear to be taught in their entirety by Kogan/Ravin/Lubash:
“The method of claim 1, wherein the computing platform constrains execution of the matching algorithm for specific clients based on privacy, data protection, or confidentiality requirements.” - See the aspects of Kogan that have been cited above. The wellness system performing matching for specific clients, in Kogan, reads on the recited “wherein the computing platform constrains execution of the matching algorithm for specific clients” limitation. Koenig discloses, “Once the user has matches, the user can purchase one or more of the records, using the payment information stored in the database 118 or 120 or other payment information. Until now, the experts and the customers have been anonymous to each other. Once a record is purchased, the contact information in that record is made available. The expert can then contact the customer, or vice versa” (col. 10, ll. 31-38). The anonymized matching process, in Koenig, reads on the recited “based on privacy, data protection, or confidentiality requirements” limitation.
Koenig discloses, “An Internet server matches experts offering consulting services in the biological sciences or the like with potential customers of such consulting services” (Abstract), similar to the claimed invention and to Kogan/Ravin/Lubash. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the matching process, of Koenig/Ravin/Lubash, to include the option for anonymity, as in Koenig, to help safeguard personal information, per Koenig (col. 10, ll. 31-38).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kogan, in view of Ravin, further in view of Lubash, further in view of U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2015/0249661 A1 to Cauthen (hereinafter referred to as “Cauthen”), and further in view of U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2016/0246936 A1 to Kahn (hereinafter referred to as “Kahn”).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Kogan, Ravin, Lubash, Cauthen, and Kahn (hereinafter referred to as “Kogan/Ravin/Lubash/Cauthen/Kahn”) teaches limitations below that are not taught in their entirety by Kogan/Ravin/Lubash:
“The method of claim 1, wherein the computing platform constrains execution of the matching algorithm for specific clients to ensure compliance with applicable laws relating to independent contractors.” - See the aspects of Kogan that have been cited above. The wellness system performing matching for specific clients, in Kogan, reads on the recited “wherein the computing platform constrains execution of the matching algorithm for specific clients” limitation. Cauthen discloses, a “matching operation” (para. [0021]), “The product inventory information platform of an example embodiment can also retrieve, retain, and process a set of standards, which can include information defining practices associated with industry accepted models and/or relevant legal requirements established under federal, state, or local laws. In many circumstances, the product inventories offered by product sources or used/requested by product consumers are subject to regulation or standard practice. In other circumstances, the context in which the products are offered or requested is subject to regulation or standard practice” and “In an unregulated system, the product buyers and sellers would be free to operate in any manner of their choosing; and an embodiment of the product inventory information platform as described above can facilitate this activity by matching product buyers with product sellers. However, in a regulated environment, such as the educational or academic ecosystem among others, product sources and product consumers must comply with the applicable regulations or standard practices” (para. [0024]). The matching in combination with meeting relevant legal requirements, in Cauthen, reads on the recited “to ensure compliance with applicable laws” limitation. Kahn discloses, “experts may be employees and in other embodiments, the may be independent contractors” (para. [0083]). The experts being independent contractors, in Kahn, read on the recited “relating to independent contractors” limitation.
Cauthen discloses, “compare the product source profiles against the consumer profiles to match the consumers needing a particular product with the product sources” (para. [0021]), similar to the claimed invention and to Kogan/Ravin/Lubash. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the matching, of Kogan/Ravin/Lubash, to include consideration of legal requirements, of Cauthen, to ensure compliance therewith, per Cauthen (para. [0024]).
Kahn discloses “facilitating remote expert consultation” (Abstract), similar to the claimed invention and to Kogan/Ravin/Lubash/Cauthen. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the pool of coaches and experts, of Kogan/Ravin/Lubash/Cauthen, to include independent contractors, as in Kahn, to expand the pool of coaches and experts beyond just employees, per Kahn (para. [0083]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kogan, in view of Ravin, further in view of Lubash, and further in view of WIPO Int’l Pub. No. 2018/129389 A1 to Gordon (hereinafter referred to as “Gordon”).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Kogan, Ravin, Lubash, and Gordon (hereinafter referred to as “Kogan/Ravin/Lubash/Gordon”) teaches limitations below that do not appear to be taught in their entirety by Kogan/Ravin/Lubash:
“The method of claim 1, wherein the preference information includes the preferred mother tongue, age range, and gender of the coach.” - See the aspects of Ravin that have been cited above. The language preferences, in Ravin, read on the recited “preference information includes the preferred mother tongue” limitation. Gordon discloses, “the data received from the participant device includes one or more preferences for coaches 581, which can include, for example, rating, gender, or age group. In at least one example, the data received from the participant device includes each of the coach rating, coach gender and coach age group” (para. [0056]). The preferences for coaches of specific age groups and genders, in Gordon, reads on the recited “age range, and gender of the coach” limitation.
Gordon discloses “INTERACTIVE MATCHING” (title), similar to the claimed invention and to Kogan/Ravin/Lubash. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the attributes and preferences, of Kogan/Ravin/Lubash, to include age and gender considerations, as in Gordon, to help ensure compatibility (e.g., a higher degree of confidence in the match) between coaches and participants, per Gordon (paras. [0056] and [0059]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kogan, in view of Ravin, further in view of Lubash, and further in view of U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2022/0366459 A1 to Vieyra (hereinafter referred to as “Vieyra”).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Kogan, Ravin, Lubash and Vieyra (hereinafter referred to as “Kogan/Ravin/Lubash/Vieyra”) teaches limitations below that do not appear to be taught in their entirety by Kogan/Ravin/Lubash:
“The method of claim 2, wherein the scripting language is Python and the cloud-based computing infrastructure comprises an Amazon Web Services (AWS) infrastructure.” - See the aspects of Kogan and Lubash that have been cited above. The software program and the cloud computing, in Kogan reads on the recited “wherein the scripting language” and “the cloud-based computing infrastructure” of Kogan. Lubash discloses, “Python” (para. [0079]). Vieyra discloses, “Amazon Web Services” (para. [0148]) that reads on the recited “Amazon Web Services (AWS) infrastructure” limitation.
The rationales for combining the teachings of Kogan, Ravin, and Lubash, from the rejection of claim 1, also apply for purposes of rejecting claim 20. Further, Vieyra discloses, “online marketplaces, professional services” (para. [0001]), similar to the claimed invention, and to Kogan/Ravin/Lubash. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the cloud computing, of Kogan/Ravin/Lubash, to include use of AWS, as in Vieyra, because it is one of many art-recognized equivalents/alternatives for facilitating the exchange of information through digital methods, per Vieyra (para. [0148]).
Response to Arguments
The prior interpretation and rejection issues concerning 35 USC 112 and claim 15 are moot in view of the amendments to the claims.
On pp. 10, 11, and 14 of the Amendment/Request, the applicant requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the prior claim rejections under 35 USC 103. The applicant’s positions have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection do not rely on the same combinations of references applied in the prior rejection of record for the teachings or matters specifically challenged in the argument. If not entirely moot, the new or modified rationales from the 35 USC 103 section above explain new interpretations and/or combinations of references that address any alleged deficiencies.
On pp. 11-17 of the Amendment/Request, the applicant requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the prior claim rejection under 35 USC 101. More specifically, the applicant contends that the claims recite a specific machine-implemented processing flow and system architecture, rather than an abstract idea of matching. (Amendment/Request, p. 14.) The examiner agrees with most of the applicant’s characterization, but not with use of the term “rather.” That is, the examiner contends that the claims recite a specific machine-implemented processing flow and system architecture and an abstract idea of matching. Or the claims recite a specific machine-implemented processing flow and system architecture used to carry out the abstract idea of matching. The machine implementation and system architecture are additional elements. The additional elements are conventional computers and componentry being used in conventional manner. The combination of such additional elements with the abstract idea elements does not warrant eligibility.
The applicant also contends that the claimed invention provides a technically grounded, system-level solution for proposing a coach to a coachee that is rooted in machine-to-machine interactions within a distributed computing environment, rather than in human judgment or manual evaluation. (Amendment/Request, p. 14.) The examiner disagrees with the applicant’s contentions and views on eligibility for the same reasons as explained in the immediately preceding paragraph.
The applicant also contends that finding the pending claims eligible would be consistent with recent Office guidance from 04 December 2025. (Amendment/Request, p. 15.) The examiner disagrees. The Office guidance covers examples involving, for example, network monitoring of network packets, improving the way computers store and retrieve information in memory and related data structures, neural networks, and control flows based on morph weight sets. The pending claims are not analogous to the examples from the Office guidance. Matching coaches and coachees is non-technological, does not improve computers or hardware, is unrelated to machine learning, and involves handling rudimentary data by conventional computers. It is unclear to the examiner why any insights from the cited Office guidance would related in any way to the pending claims.
Further, according to the applicant, the claims are directed to a practical application implemented by a specific computer-implemented system that improves the technical operation of distributed computing systems, and therefore satisfy the requirements of 35 USC 101. (Amendment/Request, p. 15.) The examiner disagrees. It is unclear how steps for matching coaches and coachees could in any way improve technical operations of distributed computing systems. Instead, the claimed invention involves merely applying generic, conventional computer componentry and computer networking to the task of matching coaches and coachees. The underlying architecture is in no way improved.
The applicant contends that the claims also should be eligible for the same reasons as the eligible claims in Enfish (Amendment/Request, pp. 15 and 16), and Data Engine (Amendment/Request, p. 16). The examiner disagrees. Enfish is about claims to a self-referential table for a computer database. (MPEP 2106.05(a)(I).) If the applicant’s claims were about the structure and operation of computers and computer networks, then the eligibility rationales from Enfish might apply. But this is not the case. The applicant’s claims are about matching coaches to coachees. The computers and networks in the applicant’s claims are not improved, and their structure and operations are not the focus of the claims. Rather, they are merely applied for purposes of matching coaches to coachees. The situation in Enfish is too different from the applicant’s claims for the eligibility rationales from Enfish to be applied. The eligibility rationales from Data Engine also are inapplicable, as the applicant’s claims lack anything analogous to the complex three-dimensional spreadsheets and techniques unique to computers that are critical to the decision in Data Engine. (MPEP 2106.05(a)(I).) For example, preference information, coaching records, and the like are not complex, and are easily handled without computers. Moreover, receiving, comparing, and otherwise processing such data does not involve techniques unique to computers, as such processing can be performed manually. The claim reciting the use of computers and the like to perform the processing does not mean the processing requires techniques unique to computers. It merely means that the processing is or can be performed by computers.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS Y. HO, whose telephone number is (571)270-7918. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9:30 AM to 5:30 PM Eastern.
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, Jerry O'Connor, can be reached at 571-272-6787. 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.
/THOMAS YIH HO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624