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 .
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.
Independent Claims 17, 28, and 36
Independent claims 17, 28, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims recite an abstract idea, and more specifically the claims recite a method, device, or storage medium that encompasses a mental process. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III) (stating under Step 2A, Prong I that “Accordingly, the ‘mental processes’ abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.”). Claims 17, 28, and 36 recite “determining operation guidance information corresponding to the service attribute information, according to the service attribute information of the target account, and displaying the message reminding information.” The limitation of “determining” is a mental process, as a person can intellectually make a conclusion about “operation guidance information” based upon “service attribute information.”
Step 2A Prong II seeks to determine whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. Here, claims 17, 28, and 36 fail to recite additional elements such that the consideration of each claim as a whole, which thereby includes the additional elements, fails to yield a practical application. Within the computer arts, the criterion of integrating the abstract idea into a practical application is frequently satisfied by the claimed subject matter amounting to the “improve[ment of] the functioning of a computer or other technology or technological field.” See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
Claim 17 is a method claim that fails to recite a single additional hardware element, and claims 28 and 36 include the generic recitation of computer elements within the preamble that are afforded no patentable weight because they are merely recited to achieve the intended use of “implement[ing]” or “performing” an “information processing method.” See § MPEP § 2111.02 (stating “During examination, statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention must be evaluated to determine whether or not the recited purpose or intended use results in a structural difference (or, in the case of process claims, manipulative difference) between the claimed invention and the prior art.”). Each of the claims additionally recite the steps of “obtaining service attribute information…” and “displaying the operation guidance information….” However, the mere obtaining and displaying of information fails to comprise a practical application—there is no improvement to a computer system that is associated with these steps. Cf. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(1) (stating “Non-limiting hypothetical examples of claims that do not recite (set forth or describe) an abstract idea include: … vi. a method of rearranging icons on a graphical user interface (GUI) comprising the steps of: receiving a user selection to organize each icon based on the amount of use of each icon, determining the amount of use of each icon by using a processor to track the amount of memory allocated to the application associated with the icon over a period of time, and automatically moving the most used icons to a position in the GUI closest to the start icon of the computer system based on the determined amount of use”).
Step 2B under the subject matter eligibility analysis assesses whether a claim includes additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception to yield an “inventive concept.” See MPEP § 2106.05(I). Here, claims 17, 28, and 36 fail to meet the criterion of Step 2B.
First, the claims recite the steps of “obtaining service attribute information…” and “displaying the operation guidance information….” These steps, however, amount to “adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.” See MPEP § 2106.04(d)(I). “Obtaining service attribute information” is pre-solution activity that represents “mere data gathering,” see MPEP § 2106.05(g), and “displaying the operation guidance information” is post-solution activity.
Second, “significantly more” is not achieved by “[s]imply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.” See MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A). The elements of the claims are represented at a high level of generality, such as “service attribute information,” “message reminding information,” “viewing operation,” and “operation guidance information,” and these elements are merely associated with the obtaining and displaying of information within the context of a common graphical user interface. These “additional elements define only well-understood, routine, conventional activity,” see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(I), and fail to yield an inventive concept, whether the elements are considered individually or in combination. See MPEP § 2106.05(I).
For the foregoing reasons, claims 17, 28, and 36 encompass an abstract idea, and they fail to satisfy either Step 2A Prong II or Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility test. Accordingly, claims 17, 28, and 36 are rejected under § 101.
Dependent Claims 18 and 29
Dependent claims 18 and 29 are rejected for substantially the same reasons as provided above for independent claims 17, 28, and 36. Claims 18 and 29 additionally recite “determining a first session box…,” and this limitation amounts to a further mental process that can be conducted within the mind of a person. Claims 18 and 29 also recite “displaying the operation guidance information…,” which is an additional limitation that fails to implement a practical application under step 2A Prong II or an inventive concept under Step 2B.
Dependent Claims 19 and 30
Dependent claims 19 and 30 are rejected for substantially the same reasons as provided above for independent claims 17, 28, and 36. Claims 19 and 30 additionally recite “detecting whether the target account performs a trigger operation…,” and this limitation amounts to a further mental process that can be conducted within the mind of a person. Claims 19 and 30 also recite “displaying a function page…,” which is an additional limitation that fails to implement a practical application under step 2A Prong II or an inventive concept under Step 2B.
Dependent Claims 20 and 31
Dependent claims 20 and 31 are rejected for substantially the same reasons as provided above for independent claims 17, 28, and 36. Claims 20 and 31 additionally recite “adding the target account to a session group…,” “displaying a second session box…,” “obtaining group operation guidance information…,” and “displaying the operation guidance information….” The two “displaying” steps have been addressed for the reasons stated above for the independent claims. The “adding” and “obtaining” steps amount to extra-solution activity that involves the gathering of data that is insufficient to satisfy the subject matter eligibility criteria for the reasons stated above for the independent claims. Accordingly, the additional limitations within claims 20 and 31 fail to implement a practical application under step 2A Prong II or an inventive concept under Step 2B.
Dependent Claims 21 and 32
Dependent claims 21 and 32 are rejected for substantially the same reasons as provided above for independent claims 17, 28, and 36. Claims 21 and 32 additionally recite “identifying a security level…,” and this limitation amounts to a further mental process that can be conducted within the mind of a person. Claims 21 and 32 additionally recite “obtaining question information…” and “displaying the answer information.” The “displaying” step has been addressed for the reasons stated above for the independent claims. The “obtaining” step amounts to extra-solution activity that involves the gathering of data that is insufficient to satisfy the subject matter eligibility criteria for the reasons stated above for the independent claims. Accordingly, the additional limitations within claims 21 and 32 fail to implement a practical application under step 2A Prong II or an inventive concept under Step 2B.
Dependent Claims 22 and 33
Dependent claims 22 and 33 are rejected for substantially the same reasons as provided above for independent claims 17, 28, and 36. Claims 22 and 33 additionally recite “displaying the answer information...,” and this “displaying” step has been addressed for the reasons stated above for the independent claims. Accordingly, this additional limitation within claims 22 and 33 fail to implement a practical application under step 2A Prong II or an inventive concept under Step 2B.
Dependent Claims 23 and 34
Dependent claims 23 and 34 are rejected for substantially the same reasons as provided above for independent claims 17, 28, and 36. Claims 23 and 34 additionally recite “determining an account level according to…” and “determining an account level is….” These two limitation amount to a further mental process that can be conducted within the mind of a person. Claims 23 and 34 additionally recite “obtaining an account identification…,” and this step amounts to extra-solution activity that involves the gathering of data that is insufficient to satisfy the subject matter eligibility criteria for the reasons stated above for the independent claims. Accordingly, the additional limitations within claims 23 and 34 fail to implement a practical application under step 2A Prong II or an inventive concept under Step 2B.
Dependent Claims 24 and 35
Dependent claims 24 and 35 are rejected for substantially the same reasons as provided above for independent claims 17, 28, and 36. Claims 24 and 35 additionally recite “pushing a notice message…,” and this step amounts to extra-solution activity that involves the gathering of data that is insufficient to satisfy the subject matter eligibility criteria for the reasons stated above for the independent claims. Accordingly, the additional limitation within claims 24 and 35 fail to implement a practical application under step 2A Prong II or an inventive concept under Step 2B.
Dependent Claim 25
Dependent claim 25 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as provided above for independent claims 17, 28, and 36. Claim 25 further limits “service attribute information,” and this fails to introduce any additional limitations that would satisfy Step 2A Prong II or Step 2B.
Dependent Claim 26
Dependent claim 26 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as provided above for independent claims 17, 28, and 36. Claim 26 additionally recites “the operation guidance information is configured to express a method of providing a service…,” and this step amounts to extra-solution activity that essentially involves the displaying of data that is insufficient to satisfy the subject matter eligibility criteria for the reasons stated above for the independent claims. Accordingly, the additional limitation within claim 26 fails to implement a practical application under step 2A Prong II or an inventive concept under Step 2B.
Dependent Claim 27
Dependent claim 27 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as provided above for independent claims 17, 28, and 36. Claim 27 additionally recites “obtaining a first authority of candidate operation guidance information…” and “taking candidate operation guidance information….” These two steps amount to extra-solution activity that involves the gathering of data that is insufficient to satisfy the subject matter eligibility criteria for the reasons stated above for the independent claims. Accordingly, the additional limitations within claim 27 fail to implement a practical application under step 2A Prong II or an inventive concept under Step 2B.
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 following conventions apply to the mapping of the prior art to the claims:
Italicized text – claim language.
Parenthetical plain text – Examiner’s citation and explanation.
Citation without an explanation – an explanation has been previously provided for the respective limitation(s).
Quotation marks – language quoted from a prior art reference.
Underlining – language quoted from a claim.
Brackets – material altered from either a prior art reference or a claim, which includes the Examiner’s explanation that relates a claim limitation to the quoted material of a reference.
Braces – a limitation taught by another reference, but the limitation is presented with the mapping of the instant reference for context.
Numbered superscript – a first phrase to be moved upwards to the primary reference analysis.
Lettered superscript – a second phrase to be moved after the movement of the first phrase from which it was lifted, or more succinctly, move numbered material first, lettered material last.
A. Claims 17-19, 28-30, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. (US 10,223,653, “Song”) in view of Hodges (US 2012/0180135, “Hodges”).
Regarding Claim 17
Song discloses
An information processing method (abstract, Figs. 8 & 9), comprising:
obtaining service attribute information of…1 (Col. 6:25-7:11, “Upon registration with the services exchange medium,…. At Step 5, the freelancer is presented with a jobs user interface [that is specific for a freelancer, and thus obtained based upon service attribute information associated with the freelancer, i.e., the nature of the freelancer dictates the specific ], which provides a link to create an online profile [associated with a target account as disclosed by Albero ] if one is not yet created, and a list of all jobs that the freelancer is associated with in the services exchange medium.”),
in response to a registration request of the target account on a target application (Col. 6:25-7:11, “At Step 3, the freelancer registers [via the registration request] as a member of the services exchange medium by accessing, for example, a registration user interface [via the target application] to become a member [with an associated target account as taught by Albero] of the services exchange medium [that implements the target application].”);
determining operation guidance information corresponding to the service attribute information, according to the service attribute information of the target account, and displaying the message reminding information (Fig. 3B, Col. 6:25-7:11, “At Step 5, the freelancer is presented with a jobs user interface, which provides a link to create an online profile if one is not yet created, and a list of all jobs that the freelancer is associated with in the services exchange medium.”, i.e., the user-specific “Onboarding Task” elements comprise operation guidance information that corresponds to the service attribute information associated with the freelancer, and with the elements within the “user account” further according to the service attribute information of the target account of the freelancer; and “…at Step 4, the freelancer is presented [via displaying] with a welcome user interface [message reminding information that serves to “remind” the freelancer of the intent with respect to the target application for freelancers], which informs the freelancer that the freelancer has to complete onboarding steps that are required by the client. In some embodiments,…”); and
displaying the operation guidance information, in response to a viewing operation of the target account on the message reminding information (Fig. 3B, Col 6:25-7:11, i.e., upon the freelancer with target account clicking the “Begin Onboarding” button as a viewing operation of the target account, with the button being on the message reminding information, “Onboarding Tasks” as operation guidance information are further displayed within the box for “My Jobs I Opportunities”).
Song doesn’t disclose
1 … a target account,
Hodges, however, discloses
1 … a target account (¶ [0038], “The social network account can be identified explicitly, for example a URL unique to the target's profile, a username of the target, or login credentials for the target's account.”),
Regarding the combination of Song and Hodges, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the information system of Song to arrive at the claimed invention. KSR establishes that a rationale for obviousness is proven by showing a “use of [a] known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.” See MPEP § 2143(I)(C).
To substantiate the conclusion of obviousness under this KSR rationale, the Examiner finds pursuant to MPEP § 2143(I)(C):
1) the prior art contained a base system, namely the information system of Song, upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement” through the use of a target account;
2) the prior art contained a “comparable” system, namely the information system of Hodges, that has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention through the target account; and
3) one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known improvement technique of applying the target account to the base information system of Song, and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 18
Song in view of Hodges (“Song-Hodges”) discloses the information processing method according to claim 17, and Song further discloses
wherein the displaying the operation guidance information, in response to the viewing operation of the target account on the message reminding information (Fig. 3B, Col 6:25-7:11) comprises:
determining a first session box between a service account and the target account (Fig. 3B, Col 6:25-7:11, i.e., the first session box is the “My Jobs I Opportunities” interface that serves as a connection between the target account of the freelancer and a service account of managers that might employ the freelancer), in response to the viewing operation of the target account on the message reminding information (Fig. 3B, Col 6:25-7:11); and
displaying the operation guidance information on the first session box (Fig. 3B, Col 6:25-7:11, i.e., the operation guidance information comprises the information within the “My Jobs I Opportunities” box or interface).
Regarding Claim 19
Song-Hodges discloses the information processing method according to claim 18, and Song further discloses
further comprising:
detecting whether the target account performs a trigger operation on a function page entrance displayed on the first session box (Fig. 3B, Col. 6:25-7:11, i.e., clicking on the “Onboarding Tasks” button located on the first session box is a detected trigger operation that comprises a function page entrance by opening a subsequent page for the user of the target account); and
displaying a function page, in response to detecting the trigger operation (Fig. 3B, Col. 6:25-7:11), wherein the function page comprises at least one function module matched with the service attribute information (Fig. 3C, Col. 6:25-7:11, “At Step 6, the freelancer is presented [via a display] with the onboarding dashboard [function page] either from the jobs user interface upon activating the onboarding dashboard link or from the welcome interface upon activating the begin onboarding link.”, i.e., the “Jobs” menu link is a function module that is matched with the service attribute information associated with the freelancer).
Regarding Independent Claims 28 and 36
With respect to independent claims 28 and 36, a corresponding reasoning as given earlier for independent claim 17 applies, mutatis mutandis, to the subject matter of claims 28 and 36. Therefore, claims 28 and 36 are rejected, for similar reasons, under the grounds set forth for claim 17.
Regarding Dependent Claims 29 and 30
With respect to independent claims 29 and 30, a corresponding reasoning as given earlier for independent claims 18 and 19 applies, mutatis mutandis, to the subject matter of claims 29 and 30. Therefore, claims 29 and 30 are rejected, for similar reasons, under the grounds set forth for claims 18 and 19.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to D'ARCY WINSTON STRAUB whose telephone number is (303)297-4405. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00 Mountain Time.
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, AMIR MEHRMANESH can be reached at (571)270-3351. 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.
/D'Arcy Winston Straub/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2491