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 .
This is a final office action in response to the applicant’s amendment received on 4/1/2026 (“Amendment”).
Claims 1-8 have been amended. Claims 9-11 are newly added. Claims 1-11 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Per independent claims 1, 7, and 8, the claims have been amended to recite in part the predetermined index criterion including an urgency degree and an importance degree, the urgency degree being based on a deadline of the customer needs, the importance degree being based on whether the customer needs relate to life events within a predetermined age range. While there is support for the predetermined index criterion including an urgency degree and an importance degree (see [0095]-[0096] in the instant publication), there is no support that the urgency degree being based on a deadline of the customer needs.
The dependent claims are rejected as they depend on claim(s) above.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Per claim 1, the scope of the claim is unclear. Particularly, the claim recites in part acquire a provision condition of the service of a service provider. Here, the scope of the claim is unclear as it is unclear whether the recited the recited the service of a service provider is any one of the previously recited service(s), i.e., a service to be matched or any one a plurality of services, or something different than the previously recited service(s).
As per claim 7, the term the service selected lack antecedent basis. The scope of the claim is unclear as it is unclear whether the service selected is referring to candidate for a service recited in the previous line in selects a candidate for a service to be matched or something else.
Furthermore, the scope of the claim is unclear as the claim recites the service on a provider side. Here, the scope of the claim is unclear as it is unclear whether the recited the recited the service of a service provider is any one of the previously recited service(s), i.e., a service to be matched or any one a plurality of services, or something different than the previously recited service(s).
As per claim 8, the scope of the claim is unclear. Particularly, the claim recites in part acquiring a provision condition of the service of a service provider. Here, the scope of the claim is unclear as it is unclear whether the recited the recited the service of a service provider is any one of the previously recited service(s), i.e., a service to be matched or any one a plurality of services, or something different than the previously recited service(s).
The dependent claims are rejected as they depend on the claim(s) above.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
MPEP 2106 provides step(s) in determining eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Specifically, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any additional elements in the claim must integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If not, the inquiry continues to see whether any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activities.
Under Step 1, claims 1-6 and 9 are directed to a to a system, claims 7 and 10 are directed to a customer terminal, while claims 8 and 11 are directed to computer readable medium (for compact prosecution interpreted as non-transitory). Thus, the claimed inventions are directed towards one of the four statutory categories under 35 USC § 101. Nevertheless, the claims also fall within the judicial exception of an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-6, 8-9, and 11 Analysis:
Step 2A, 1st prong:
Claim 1 recites: A matching system, comprising:
a first processor configured to, by executing a first program stored in a first memory:
a1) acquire a situation evaluation result including a service proposal content for a customer according to customer needs;
a2) determine priority of the customer according to the customer needs based on the situation evaluation result and a predetermined index criterion, the predetermined index criterion including an urgency degree and an importance degree, the urgency degree being based on a deadline of the customer needs, the importance degree being based on whether the customer needs relate to life events within a predetermined age range; and
a3) select a candidate for a service to be matched from among a plurality of services based on the situation evaluation result and the determined priority of the customer;
a second processor configured to, by executing a second program stored in a second memory,
b) acquire a provision condition of the service of a service provider; and
a third processor configured to, by executing a third program stored in a third memory:
c1) acquire the selected candidate for the service to be matched;
c2) acquire the provision condition;
c3) extract services of a proposal candidate based on the acquired candidate for the service to be matched and the provision condition on a provider side;
c4) select a service to be proposed to the customer from among the extracted services of the proposal candidate; and
c5) present the service selected by the third processor to the customer and the service provider.
(Emphasis added on the additional element(s))
The claim recites a process/functions that results in c4) select a service to be proposed to a customer from among the extracted services, i.e., c3) services of a proposal candidate extracted based on a acquired candidate for the service to be matched and the provision condition on a provider side, of the proposal candidate; and c5) present the selected service to the customer and the service provider. The claim achieves by a first entity that a1) acquires a situation evaluation result (service proposal content for a customer needs), a2) determines priority of the customer according to the customer needs based on the situation evaluation result and a predetermined index criterion (an urgency degree such as deadline of the customer needs and an importance degree such as whether the customer needs relate to life events within a predetermined age range), a3) selects a candidate for a service that is to be matched from among a plurality of services based on the situation evaluation result and the determined priority of the customer; a second entity that b) acquire a provision condition of the service of a service provider (i.e., what services can be provided and when); and a third entity that c1) acquires the selected candidate for the service to be matched (i.e., selected in a3), c2) acquire the provision condition (i.e., in b), c3) extract services of a proposal candidate based on the acquired candidate for the service and the provision condition, c4) select a service to be proposed to the customer from among the extracted service of the proposal candidate, and c5) present the selected service to the customer and the service provider.
As such, the claim recites a certain method of organizing human activity, i.e., business relations and/or managing relationships or interactions among people (customer and service provider) in selecting a service to be proposed to the customer and presenting the selected service to the customer and the service provider. The examiner also finds that the process as recited in the claim in selecting the service to be proposed to the customer from among the extracted services of the proposal candidate (i.e., acquiring information, determine …, select a candidate for a service to be matched …, acquire a provision condition of the service of a service provider, using the acquired information in extracting services of a proposal, and selecting a service from among the extracted services) fall within mental process as the process can be done in human mind with pen and paper.
Independent claim 8 is significantly similar to claim 1. As such, claim 8 also recite abstract idea.
Under the Step 2A (prong 2), this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Specifically, the additional elements in the claim(s), i.e., non-computer readable medium, programs, a computer, memories, system, a first processor, a second processor, and a third processor, amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea and/or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f). There is no indication that the claim improves upon the computer or the system and its components.
Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e. whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). Here, the claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Specifically, the claim(s) as a whole, taken individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept. As explained above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed judicial exception amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea and/or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea to apply the exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Looking at the limitations as a combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of the elements improves the functioning of the recited computer component(s).
Dependent claims 2-6, 9, and 11 further expand on the abstract idea without recitation of further additional element, i.e., other than the additional element(s) identified in claims 1 and 8.
Claims 7 and 10 Analysis:
Step 2A, 1st prong:
Claim 7 recites: A customer terminal device, comprising:
at least one processor; and
at least one memory including at least one program that, when executed by the at least one processor:
a) acquires a situation evaluation result including a service proposal content for a customer according to customer needs;
b) determines priority of the customer for the needs based on the situation evaluation result and a predetermined index criterion, the predetermined index criterion including an urgency degree and an importance degree, the urgency degree being based on a deadline of the customer needs, the importance degree being based on whether the customer needs relate to life events within a predetermined age range;
c) selects a candidate for a service to be matched from among a plurality of services based on the situation evaluation result and the determined priority of the customer;
d) acquires, from a matching server, information of the service selected based on the candidate for the service to be matched, which is selected by the customer-side service selection unit, and a provision condition of the service on a provider side; and
e) presents the acquired information of the service.
(Emphasis added on the additional element(s))
The claim recites a process/functions that results in e) presents the acquired information of the service. The claim achieves this acquiring of the information of the service by functions that a) acquires a situation evaluation result (service proposal content for a customer needs), b) determines priority of the customer according to the customer needs based on the situation evaluation result and a predetermined index criterion (an urgency degree such as deadline of the customer needs and an importance degree such as whether the customer needs relate to life events within a predetermined age range), c) selects a candidate for a service that is to be matched from among a plurality of services based on the situation evaluation result and the determined priority of the customer; d) acquires from a matching service information of the service selected based on the candidate for the service and a provision condition of the service on a provider side; and e) present the acquired information of the service. As such, the claim recites a certain method of organizing human activity, i.e., business relations and/or managing relationships or interactions among people (customer and service provider) in selecting a service to be proposed to the customer and presenting the selected service to the customer and the service provider. The examiner also finds that the functions as recited in the claim, i.e., the two acquires functions, determines priority, and selects a candidate for a service, fall within mental process as the process can be done in human mind with pen and paper.
Accordingly, claim 7 recite abstract idea.
Under the Step 2A (prong 2), this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Specifically, the additional elements in the claim(s), i.e., terminal device, at least one processor, at least one memory, at least one program, and a matching server, amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea and/or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f). There is no indication that the claim improves upon the computer or the terminal device and its components.
Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e. whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). Here, the claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Specifically, the claim(s) as a whole, taken individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept. As explained above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed judicial exception amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea and/or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea to apply the exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Looking at the limitations as a combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of the elements improves the functioning of the recited computer component(s).
Dependent claims 10 further expand on the abstract idea without recitation of further additional element, i.e., other than the additional element(s) identified in claim 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, and 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR10-2552732B1 as translated by IP.COM (“Kim”) in view of US 20020143680 A1 (“Walters”).
Per claims 1, 7, and 8, Kim discloses a method comprising:
acquiring a situation evaluation result including a service proposal content for a customer according to customer needs (p2 , last paragraph, user information requiring care service; p3, paragraph 7, collects customer information; p4, paragraph 2, priority matching condition selected by the user; p6, paragraph 2, collect user information; p7, paragraph 5, user information requiring care services);
determining priority of the customer according to the customer needs based on the situation evaluation result and a predetermined index criterion (p4, paragraph 2, priority matching condition selected by the user; p6, paragraph 11, products optimized for the user’s condition; p7, paragraph 7, extracts the user’s detail information including age, medical history, etc.);
selecting a candidate for a service to be matched from among a plurality of services based on the situation evaluation result and the determined priority of the customer (p6, paragraph 11, products optimized for the user’s condition; p7, paragraph 1, selects and recommends welfare products and caregivers suitable for the user based on the information provided by the welfare appliance office/home center/caregiver provision platform and mediates between the user and the caregiver or buys and sells welfare products; p7, last paragraph, expose product or services with high preferences);
acquiring a provision condition of the service of a service provider (p7, paragraph 1, selects and recommends welfare products and caregivers suitable for the user based on the information provided by the welfare appliance office/home center/caregiver provision platform and mediates between the user and the caregiver or buys and sells welfare products; p7, paragraph 2, evaluate by rating, preference, etc.);
acquiring the selected candidate for the service to be matched (p7, paragraph 1, selects and recommends welfare products and caregivers suitable for the user based on the information provided by the welfare appliance office/home center/caregiver provision platform and mediates between the user and the caregiver or buys and sells welfare products);
acquiring the provision condition (p7, paragraph 1, selects and recommends welfare products and caregivers suitable for the user based on the information provided by the welfare appliance office/home center/caregiver provision platform and mediates between the user and the caregiver or buys and sells welfare products; p8, paragraph 5, location of nursing institutions and medical institutions, caregiver’s career, age, place of residence, desired salary, etc.);
extract services of a proposal candidate based on the acquired candidate for the service to be matched and the provision condition on a provider side (p8, paragraph 3, nursing institution information, insurance information, welfare benefit information; p8, paragraph 5, location of nursing institutions and medical institutions, caregiver’s career, age, place of residence, desired salary, etc … information including welfare, insurance, provider, etc);
selecting a service to be proposed to the customer from among the extracted services of the proposal candidate (p8, paragraph 6, matching information and detailed information are compared to recommend welfare goods and services including caregivers, nursing institutions, insurance, and welfare benefits according to conditions of users and guardians); and
presenting the selected service to the customer (p. 8, paragraph 8, recommend welfare goods and services including nursing facilities, medical institutions, and caregivers).
Kim further teaches unit(s) for performing the step(s)/function(s) (p7, paragraph 4, processor, computer, application software, etc, ; p8, paragraph 7, various computer components and recorded on a computer-readable recording medium).
Kim does not particularly teach presenting the selected service to the service provider. However, as Kim teaches presenting the selected service to the customer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing of instant claim to present the selected service to the parties, including the service provider in Kim, so that the service provider is kept abreast of the service that has been selected.
Kim does not particularly teach that the predetermined index criterion includes an urgency degree and an importance degree, the urgency degree being based on a deadline of the customer needs, the importance degree being based on whether the customer needs relate to life events within a predetermined age range.
Walters, however, teaches predetermined index criterion includes an urgency degree and an importance degree, the urgency degree being based on a deadline of the customer needs, the importance degree being based on whether the customer needs relate to life events within a predetermined age range (see [0018], personal information comprising client and dependent names, ages, and marital status; financial information on one or more of savings accounts, investment accounts, insurance policies, retirement accounts, stock options, trusts, history of gifts to family members, loans, charitable contributions, charitable trusts, property, businesses, and income sources; and goal information comprising retirement age and income goals and estate related goals; applying stored rules for determining which if any of the financial products available for sale are appropriate to the client's financial situation and goals; delivering one or more web pages to the financial professional which identifies and ranks the available financial products according to appropriateness for the client).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of instant claim to utilize any known information, including the urgency and importance degree as taught by Walters, as data used to prioritize the needs of the customer in Kim in order to identify the best need for the customer in Kim.
Furthermore, the applicant is reminded that recitation of what the predetermined index criterion includes is non-functional descriptive material as the description.
In further reference to claim 1, Kim/Walters does not particularly disclose a first processor, a second processor, and a third processor performing the particular functions above. However, as Walters teaches multiple processors within the system, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing of the claim to utilize multiple processors in separating of parts of what is formerly integral.
As per claim 2, Kim/Walters further teaches wherein the first processor determines whether or not the customer needs relate to the life events, based on a predetermined determination criterion (Kim: p5, paragraph 4-5, aging society and addressing of silver industry for providing goods and services for the elderly; p6, paragraph 3, goods and services in the silver industry; p7, paragraph 2, visiting care, visiting bathing, visiting nursing, day/night care, short-term care, and day/night care)(Walters: [0018]).
As per claims 5 and 6, Kim/Walters further teaches wherein the third processor selects a first service with a first added value when the priority of the customer is a first priority, and selects a second service with a second added value when the priority of the customer is a second priority, from among the plurality of services, the first priority is lower than the second priority, and the first added value is lower than the second added value wherein the first service with the first added value is selected in response to the customer satisfying a predetermined condition, and the second service with the second added value is selected based on consideration of an individual situation of the customer (Kim: p3, paragraph 2, priority matching condition selected by the user; p7, last paragraph, priority matching … expose welfare products and services including … and caregivers with high preference).
As per claims 9-11, Kim/Walters further teaches wherein the situation evaluation results include at least one of biometric information of the customer or living information of the customer, the biometric information is about at least one of an independence degree of the customer, a nursing care degree of the customer, or an exercise function of the customer, and the living information at least one of indicates a residence space in which the customer resides or a lifestyle of the customer (Kim: p7, paragraphs 5-6, medica history, place of residence, etc.).
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim/Walters as applied in claim 1, in further view of US Patent No. 7,653,583 (“Leeb”).
Per claim 3, Kim/Walters does not specifically teach wherein the second processor acquires delivery date information of the service of the service provider, the third processor further acquires the delivery date information, and the third processor presents the delivery date information of the extracted services of the proposal candidate to the customer.
Leeb, however, teaches wherein the second processor acquires delivery date information of the service of the service provider, the third processor further acquires the delivery date information, and the third processor presents the delivery date information of the extracted services of the proposal candidate to the customer (Fig. 2; Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of instant claim to include the teachings taught by Leeb above to Kim/Walters as the combination provides means for the parties to utilize any known criteria including the delivery data information as criteria used to select a service.
As per claim 4, Kim does not specifically teach wherein the second processor acquires delivery date information of the service of the service provider, the third processor further acquires the delivery date information, and the third processor selects the service to be proposed to the customer by giving priority to a service with an earlier delivery date, based on the extracted services of the proposal candidate and the delivery date information.
Leeb, however, teaches wherein the second processor acquires delivery date information of the service of the service provider, the third processor further acquires the delivery date information, and the third processor selects the service to be proposed to the customer by giving priority to a service with an earlier delivery date, based on the extracted services of the proposal candidate and the delivery date information (Fig. 2; Fig. 3; c10, ll52-57, delivery date used to compare).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of instant claim to include the teachings taught by Leeb to Kim/Walters as the combination provides means for the parties to utilize any known criteria including the delivery data information as criteria used to select a service.
Response to the Argument(s)
112
The claims remain rejected under 112 for the reasons outlined above in the 112 sections.
101
The applicant asserts that “the features of the amended independent claims improve the technical field and/or use any judicial exception to which the claims may be directed to in a meaningful way at least by determining/matching the service and candidate for providing the service to the customer based on the situation evaluation result and the determined priority of the customer. In other words, and amongst other features, the amended independent claims of the present application improve quality-of-service (QoS) and at least amount to significantly more than merely being directed to any abstract idea, as evidenced by the features not being disclosed or rendered obvious by any prior art documents (as will be discussed in the following sections)”. See page 14 of the Amendment.
The examiner submits that improving the quality of service is a business centric concept not a technical improvement. Furthermore, determining/matching the service and candidate for providing the service to the customer based on the situation evaluation result and the determined priority of the customer is an abstract idea, i.e., a certain method of organizing human activities and/or mental activities that can be performed in human mind with the aid of pen and paper (see above 101 analysis). The additional elements as identified above in the 101 analysis, including computer system and its components, are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea and/or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f). There is no indication that the claim improves upon the computer or the system and its components.
Accordingly, the claims as amended remain rejected under 101.
103
The applicant’s argument is based on newly added limitations. A new reference has been introduced to address the newly added limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20020038233 discloses a matching system which assists in matching the consumers with professional service providers. The matching system coordinates communications between consumers and qualified service providers located in the same region as the consumer. The matching system is computer based and includes: a network, a service provider database, a consumer database and a software program for searching the databases and coordinating communications between consumers and service providers;
US 8195668 discloses a matching system that establish a profile for each of the end users to be used in matching the end users to each other for a potential relationship. Information is provided in the profile and the information includes relevant characteristics of corresponding end users. A first end user is asked one or more questions after their profile is established, the questions being posed to a second end user whose respective profile has also been established and whose profile has already been matched to the first end user's profile. Answers for the questions from the first and second end users are compared and a subsequent message is sent to the first end user if the answers provided by the first end user and the second end user are compatible;
US 9733811 discloses profile matching comprises receiving a plurality of user profiles, each user profile comprising traits of a respective user. It also comprises receiving a preference indication for a first user profile of the plurality of user profiles. It further comprises determining a potential match user profile of the plurality of user profiles based on the preference indication for the first user profile. The method also comprises presenting the potential match user profile to a second user.
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 STEVEN S KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-5287. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday: 7:00 - 3:30.
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, Patrick McAtee can be reached on 571-272-7575. 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.
/STEVEN S KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3698
Prosecution Insights