DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Application
2. Claims 1-15 have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits. Examiner Note: Applicant has submitted preliminary amendments regarding the Drawings, the Claims and a Substitute Specification into the record on 11/19/2024. Examiner has annotated “OK to Enter” with Examiner’s initials and date into the record for OC Submission.
Priority
3. The Examiner has noted the Applicants claiming Priority from Foreign Application JP2022-085045 filed on 05/25/2022. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file. Therefore, Examiner notes the effective filing date of this application examined on the record is 05/25/2022.
IDS Statements
4. The 1 Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 11/19/2024 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 and are considered by the Examiner.
Specification Objections
5. (A). The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The following title is suggested: “A Support System and Method to Match Clients to Service Providers Based on Difficulty Level and Reliability of the Service Requests.” Appropriate correction is required. See MPEP § 606.01.
35 U.S.C. § 112 (f) Claim Interpretation
6. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
7. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
These claim limitation(s) are shown below and reflected for Claims 1, 4-6 and 8-9.
Such claim limitation(s) are shown below in Independent Claim 1:
8. (A). “a difficulty level determination portion that determines a difficulty level of the request based on the request information” that uses the generic placeholder “a difficulty level determination portion” functionally modified by verb “determines” via the linking term “that”.
(B). “a first extraction portion that extracts candidates of the providers of the service from the basic information so as to extract the provider having a higher reliability for the request having a higher difficulty level and that generates a first extraction result describing extracted results” that uses the generic placeholder “a first extraction portion” functionally modified by verb “extracts” via the linking term “that”.
(C). “a second extraction portion that extracts candidates of the providers of the service from the first extraction result so as to extract the provider having higher expertise in the service for the request having a higher difficulty level and that generates a second extraction result describing extract results” that uses the generic placeholder “a second extraction portion” functionally modified by verb “extracts” via the linking term “that”.
Such claim limitation(s) are shown below in Dependent Claim 4:
(A). “further comprising a recommendation section that presents, to the client, the candidates of the providers based on the second extraction result via a user interface” that uses the generic placeholder “a recommendation section” functionally modified by verb “presents” via the linking term “that”.
Such claim limitation(s) are shown below in Dependent Claim 5:
(A). “wherein the difficulty level determination portion determines a difficulty level for each element of the request” that uses the generic placeholder “difficulty level determination portion” functionally modified by verb “determines”.
(B). “wherein the matching support system further comprises a workload determination portion that calculates a workload for each difficulty level of the request” that uses the generic placeholder “a workload determination portion” functionally modified by verb “calculates” via the linking term “that”.
(C). “wherein the difficulty level determination portion determines a difficulty level for each element of the request” that uses the generic placeholder “difficulty level determination portion” functionally modified by verb “generates”.
(D). “wherein the first extraction portion generates the first extraction result for each difficulty level” that uses the generic placeholder “a first extraction portion” functionally modified by verb “generates”.
(E). “wherein the second extraction portion generates the second extraction result for each difficulty level” that uses the generic placeholder “a second extraction portion” functionally modified by verb “generates”.
(F). “wherein the matching support system further comprises a third extraction portion that extracts a combination of the providers, each of which is capable of handling the workload for each difficulty level, in the second extraction result for each difficulty level and that generates a third extraction result describing the extracted combination” that uses the generic placeholder “a third extraction portion” functionally modified by verb “extracts” via the linking term “that”.
Such claim limitation(s) are shown below in Dependent Claim 6:
(A). “further comprising a recommendation section that presents, to the client, the candidates of the providers based on the third extraction result via a user interface” that uses the generic placeholder “a recommendation section” functionally modified by verb “presents” via the linking term “that”.
Such claim limitation(s) are shown below in Dependent Claim 8:
(A). “a client evaluation registration section that receives and stores, from the provider, an evaluation of the client from whom a request is received in the past” that uses the generic placeholder “a client evaluation registration section” functionally modified by verb “receives” via the linking term “that”.
(B). “a desired client level registration section that receives and stores, from the provider, a desired client level that is a threshold value of evaluation used to determine a desired client” that uses the generic placeholder “a desired client level registration section” functionally modified by verb “receives” via the linking term “that”.
(C). “wherein the recommendation section does not present, to the client, a provider that does not meet the desired client level in the evaluation of the client, among the candidates of the providers based on the second extraction result” that uses the generic placeholder “a recommendation section” functionally modified by verb “not present”.
Such claim limitation(s) are shown below in Dependent Claim 9:
(A). “a client evaluation registration section that receives and stores, from the provider, an evaluation of the client from whom a request is received in the past” that uses the generic placeholder “a client evaluation registration section” functionally modified by verb “receives” via the linking term “that”.
(B). “a desired client level registration section that receives and stores, from the provider, a desired client level that is a threshold value of evaluation used to determine a desired client” that uses the generic placeholder “a desired client level registration section” functionally modified by verb “receives” via the linking term “that”.
(C). “wherein the recommendation section does not present, to the client, a provider that does not meet the desired client level in the evaluation of the client, among the candidates of the providers based on the third extraction result” that uses the generic placeholder “the recommendation section” functionally modified by verb “not present”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
9. 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.
10. Claims 1, 4-6 and 8-9 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.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are shown below in Independent Claim 1:
(A). “a difficulty level determination portion that determines a difficulty level of the request based on the request information” that uses the generic placeholder “a difficulty level determination portion” functionally modified by verb “determines” via the linking term “that”.
(B). “a first extraction portion that extracts candidates of the providers of the service from the basic information so as to extract the provider having a higher reliability for the request having a higher difficulty level and that generates a first extraction result describing extracted results” that uses the generic placeholder “a first extraction portion” functionally modified by verb “extracts” via the linking term “that”.
(C). “a second extraction portion that extracts candidates of the providers of the service from the first extraction result so as to extract the provider having higher expertise in the service for the request having a higher difficulty level and that generates a second extraction result describing extract results” that uses the generic placeholder “a second extraction portion” functionally modified by verb “extracts” via the linking term “that”.
Such claim limitation(s) are shown below in Dependent Claim 4:
(A). “further comprising a recommendation section that presents, to the client, the candidates of the providers based on the second extraction result via a user interface” that uses the generic placeholder “a recommendation section” functionally modified by verb “presents” via the linking term “that”.
Such claim limitation(s) are shown below in Dependent Claim 5:
(A). “wherein the difficulty level determination portion determines a difficulty level for each element of the request” that uses the generic placeholder “difficulty level determination portion” functionally modified by verb “determines”.
(B). “wherein the matching support system further comprises a workload determination portion that calculates a workload for each difficulty level of the request” that uses the generic placeholder “a workload determination portion” functionally modified by verb “calculates” via the linking term “that”.
(C). “wherein the difficulty level determination portion determines a difficulty level for each element of the request” that uses the generic placeholder “difficulty level determination portion” functionally modified by verb “generates”.
(D). “wherein the first extraction portion generates the first extraction result for each difficulty level” that uses the generic placeholder “a first extraction portion” functionally modified by verb “generates”.
(E). “wherein the second extraction portion generates the second extraction result for each difficulty level” that uses the generic placeholder “a second extraction portion” functionally modified by verb “generates”.
(F). “wherein the matching support system further comprises a third extraction portion that extracts a combination of the providers, each of which is capable of handling the workload for each difficulty level, in the second extraction result for each difficulty level and that generates a third extraction result describing the extracted combination” that uses the generic placeholder “a third extraction portion” functionally modified by verb “extracts” via the linking term “that”.
Such claim limitation(s) are shown below in Dependent Claim 6:
(A). “further comprising a recommendation section that presents, to the client, the candidates of the providers based on the third extraction result via a user interface” that uses the generic placeholder “a recommendation section” functionally modified by verb “presents” via the linking term “that”.
Such claim limitation(s) are shown below in Dependent Claim 8:
(A). “a client evaluation registration section that receives and stores, from the provider, an evaluation of the client from whom a request is received in the past” that uses the generic placeholder “a client evaluation registration section” functionally modified by verb “receives” via the linking term “that”.
(B). “a desired client level registration section that receives and stores, from the provider, a desired client level that is a threshold value of evaluation used to determine a desired client” that uses the generic placeholder “a desired client level registration section” functionally modified by verb “receives” via the linking term “that”.
(C). “wherein the recommendation section does not present, to the client, a provider that does not meet the desired client level in the evaluation of the client, among the candidates of the providers based on the second extraction result” that uses the generic placeholder “a recommendation section” functionally modified by verb “not present”.
Such claim limitation(s) are shown below in Dependent Claim 9:
(A). “a client evaluation registration section that receives and stores, from the provider, an evaluation of the client from whom a request is received in the past” that uses the generic placeholder “a client evaluation registration section” functionally modified by verb “receives” via the linking term “that”.
(B). “a desired client level registration section that receives and stores, from the provider, a desired client level that is a threshold value of evaluation used to determine a desired client” that uses the generic placeholder “a desired client level registration section” functionally modified by verb “receives” via the linking term “that”.
(C). “wherein the recommendation section does not present, to the client, a provider that does not meet the desired client level in the evaluation of the client, among the candidates of the providers based on the third extraction result” that uses the generic placeholder “the recommendation section” functionally modified by verb “not present”.
The Original Specification doesn’t clearly, deliberately and sufficiently provide, for each of the generic placeholders “a difficulty level determination portion” & “a first extraction portion” & “second extraction portion” & “a workload determination portion” & “a recommendation section” & “the difficulty level determination portion” & “a first extraction portion” & “second extraction portion” & “third extraction portion” & “a client evaluation registration section” & “a desired client level registration section” for:
➔ each of the adequate respective structure to perform each respective functions of Claims 1, 4-6 and 8-9 and to clearly link each of their respective functions.
Specifically, the Original Specification does not demonstrate that Applicant has made an
invention that achieves each and all of the respective claimed functions by each of the respective
structure because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary
skills in the art can reasonably conclude that inventor had possession of claimed invention.
Clarifications and/or corrections are required.
11. 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.
12. Claims 1, 4-6 and 8-9 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.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are shown below in Independent Claim 1:
(A). “a difficulty level determination portion that determines a difficulty level of the request based on the request information” that uses the generic placeholder “a difficulty level determination portion” functionally modified by verb “determines” via the linking term “that”.
(B). “a first extraction portion that extracts candidates of the providers of the service from the basic information so as to extract the provider having a higher reliability for the request having a higher difficulty level and that generates a first extraction result describing extracted results” that uses the generic placeholder “a first extraction portion” functionally modified by verb “extracts” via the linking term “that”.
(C). “a second extraction portion that extracts candidates of the providers of the service from the first extraction result so as to extract the provider having higher expertise in the service for the request having a higher difficulty level and that generates a second extraction result describing extract results” that uses the generic placeholder “a second extraction portion” functionally modified by verb “extracts” via the linking term “that”.
Such claim limitation(s) are shown below in Dependent Claim 4:
(A). “further comprising a recommendation section that presents, to the client, the candidates of the providers based on the second extraction result via a user interface” that uses the generic placeholder “a recommendation section” functionally modified by verb “presents” via the linking term “that”.
Such claim limitation(s) are shown below in Dependent Claim 5:
(A). “wherein the difficulty level determination portion determines a difficulty level for each element of the request” that uses the generic placeholder “difficulty level determination portion” functionally modified by verb “determines”.
(B). “wherein the matching support system further comprises a workload determination portion that calculates a workload for each difficulty level of the request” that uses the generic placeholder “a workload determination portion” functionally modified by verb “calculates” via the linking term “that”.
(C). “wherein the difficulty level determination portion determines a difficulty level for each element of the request” that uses the generic placeholder “difficulty level determination portion” functionally modified by verb “generates”.
(D). “wherein the first extraction portion generates the first extraction result for each difficulty level” that uses the generic placeholder “a first extraction portion” functionally modified by verb “generates”.
(E). “wherein the second extraction portion generates the second extraction result for each difficulty level” that uses the generic placeholder “a second extraction portion” functionally modified by verb “generates”.
(F). “wherein the matching support system further comprises a third extraction portion that extracts a combination of the providers, each of which is capable of handling the workload for each difficulty level, in the second extraction result for each difficulty level and that generates a third extraction result describing the extracted combination” that uses the generic placeholder “a third extraction portion” functionally modified by verb “extracts” via the linking term “that”.
Such claim limitation(s) are shown below in Dependent Claim 6:
(A). “further comprising a recommendation section that presents, to the client, the candidates of the providers based on the third extraction result via a user interface” that uses the generic placeholder “a recommendation section” functionally modified by verb “presents” via the linking term “that”.
Such claim limitation(s) are shown below in Dependent Claim 8:
(A). “a client evaluation registration section that receives and stores, from the provider, an evaluation of the client from whom a request is received in the past” that uses the generic placeholder “a client evaluation registration section” functionally modified by verb “receives” via the linking term “that”.
(B). “a desired client level registration section that receives and stores, from the provider, a desired client level that is a threshold value of evaluation used to determine a desired client” that uses the generic placeholder “a desired client level registration section” functionally modified by verb “receives” via the linking term “that”.
(C). “wherein the recommendation section does not present, to the client, a provider that does not meet the desired client level in the evaluation of the client, among the candidates of the providers based on the second extraction result” that uses the generic placeholder “a recommendation section” functionally modified by verb “not present”.
Such claim limitation(s) are shown below in Dependent Claim 9:
(A). “a client evaluation registration section that receives and stores, from the provider, an evaluation of the client from whom a request is received in the past” that uses the generic placeholder “a client evaluation registration section” functionally modified by verb “receives” via the linking term “that”.
(B). “a desired client level registration section that receives and stores, from the provider, a desired client level that is a threshold value of evaluation used to determine a desired client” that uses the generic placeholder “a desired client level registration section” functionally modified by verb “receives” via the linking term “that”.
(C). “wherein the recommendation section does not present, to the client, a provider that does not meet the desired client level in the evaluation of the client, among the candidates of the providers based on the third extraction result” that uses the generic placeholder “the recommendation section” functionally modified by verb “not present”.
The Original Specification doesn’t clearly, deliberately and sufficiently provide, for each of the generic placeholders “a difficulty level determination portion” & “a first extraction portion” & “second extraction portion” & “a workload determination portion” & “a recommendation section” & “the difficulty level determination portion” & “a first extraction portion” & “second extraction portion” & “third extraction portion” & “a client evaluation registration section” & “a desired client level registration section” for:
➔ each of the adequate respective structure to perform each respective functions of Claims 1, 4-6 and 8-9 and to clearly link each of their respective functions.
Specifically, the Original Specification does not demonstrate that Applicant has made an invention that achieves each and all of the respective claimed functions by each of the respective structure, thus rendering their underlining limitations vague and indefinite.
Appropriate corrections are required.
13. Secondly, Claims 2-3 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.
(B). Dependent Claim 2 recites the following limitation: “The matching support system according to claim 1, wherein the reliability is calculated based on at least one of: an experience level of the provider for each field of service, [[the]] number of cases of the service provided, and a success rate of the service.”. Examiner notes there appear to be a lack of antecedent basis regarding the phrase “the number of cases” when referring back to the previous limitations recited in Independent Claim 1, which renders this phrase vague and indefinite. For the purposes of examination, Examiner suggests to Applicant to amend the limitation in Dependent Claim 2 to recite the following limitation: “The matching support system according to claim 1, wherein the reliability is calculated based on at least one of: an experience level of the provider for each field of service, [a number of cases of the service provided, and a success rate of the service.”
(C). Dependent Claim 3 recites the following limitation: “The matching system according to claim 1, wherein a level of the expertise is determined based on at least one of an experience level of the provider for each field of the service, [[the]] number of cases of the service provided for each field, evaluation of the client on the provided service, and a field of expertise received from the provider.”. Examiner notes there appear to be a lack of antecedent basis regarding the phrase “the number of cases” when referring back to the previous limitations recited in Independent Claim 1, which renders this phrase vague and indefinite. For the purposes of examination, Examiner suggests to Applicant to amend the limitation in Dependent Claim 3 to recite the following limitation: “The matching system according to claim 1, wherein a level of the expertise is determined based on at least one of an experience level of the provider for each field of the service, [[a number of cases of the service provided for each field, evaluation of the client on the provided service, and a field of expertise received from the provider.” Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
14. 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.
15. Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-15 are each focused to a statutory category namely a “system” or an “apparatus” (Claims 1-9) and a “method” or a “process” (Claims 10-15).
Step 2A Prong One: Independent Claims 1 and 10 recite limitations that set forth the abstract idea(s), namely (see in bold except via strikethrough):
“ supports matching between a client and a provider of a service in a case where the client requests the provider of the service to provide the service” (see Independent Claim 1);
“” (see Independent Claim 1);
“storing basic information that is information about each of a plurality of the providers” (see Independent Claim 1);
“storing request information that is information about a request received from the client” (see Independent Claim 1);
“storing reliability that is information indicating a degree of reliability of each of the plurality of providers” (see Independent Claim 1);
“storing information that indicates expertise of each of the providers for the service” (see Independent Claim 1);
“comprising:”
“ determines a difficulty level of the request based on the request information” (see Independent Claim 1);
“ extracts candidates of the providers of the service from the basic information so as to extract the provider having a higher reliability for the request having a higher difficulty level and that generates a first extraction result describing extracted results” (see Independent Claim 1);
“ extracts candidates of the providers of the service from the first extraction result so as to extract the provider having higher expertise in the service for the request having a higher difficulty level and that generates a second extraction result describing extract results” (see Independent Claim 1);
“ supporting matching between a client and a provider of a service in a case where the client requests the provider of the service to provide the service” (see Independent Claim 10);
“” (see Independent Claim 10);
“a step of storing basic information that is information about each of a plurality of the providers” (see Independent Claim 10);
“a step of storing request information that is information about a request received from the client” (see Independent Claim 10);
“a step of storing reliability that is information indicating a degree of reliability of each of the plurality of providers” (see Independent Claim 10);
“a step of storing information that indicates expertise of each of the providers for the service” (see Independent Claim 10);
“a step of determining a difficulty level of the request based on the request information” (see Independent Claim 10);
“a step of extracting candidates of the providers of the service from the basic information so as to extract the provider having a higher reliability for the request having a higher difficulty level and that generates a first extraction result describing extracted results” (see Independent Claim 10);
“a step of extracting candidates of the providers of the service from the first extraction result so as to extract the provider having higher expertise in the service for the request having a higher difficulty level and that generates a second extraction result describing extract results” (see Independent Claim 10).
Here, for Independent Claims 1 and 10, the claims recite an abstract idea of a method and system of matchmaking or selecting a service provider based on matching requested difficulty with provider reliability and expertise. These claims are directed to an automated method/system of classifying a service request’s difficulty, filtering providers based on reliability and further filtering based on expertise to match a client with a suitable provider.
The system automates the commercial process of selecting a service provider (a form of matchmaking/intermediation) which pertains to the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” category that falls under (1) fundamental economic practice or (2) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including teachings or following rules or instructions). Moreover, the steps of assessing difficulty, reliability and expertise, even if performed by a computer, are similar to mental processes that can be performed by a human matchmaker pertain to the “Mental Processes” category that falls under (3) concepts performed in the human mind (including observations or evaluations or judgments) or (4) using pen and paper as a physical aid.
Therefore, these abstract idea limitations (as identified above in bold), under their broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims as a whole, cover performance of their limitations as “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” which pertains to (1) fundamental economic practice or (2) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including teachings or following rules or instructions). Additionally, or alternatively, these abstract idea limitations (as identified above in bold), under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims as a whole, cover performance of their limitations as “Mental Processes” which pertains to (3) concepts performed in the human mind (including observations or evaluations or judgments) or (4) using pen and paper as a physical aid, in order to help perform these mental steps does not negate the mental nature of these limitations. The use of "physical aids" in implementing the abstract mental process, does not preclude these claims from reciting an abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.04(a) III C.
That is, other than reciting the additional elements of (e.g., “matching support system” & “information processing apparatus” & “processor” & “storage device” & “difficulty level determination portion” & “first extraction portion” & “second extraction portion”), nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from being performed as “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” which pertains to (1) fundamental economic practice or (2) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including teachings or following rules or instructions) and additionally or alternatively as “Mental Processes” which pertains to (3) concepts performed in the human mind (including observations or evaluations or judgments) or (4) using pen and paper as a physical aid.
Moreover, the mere recitation of generic computer components such as (e.g., “processor” & “storage device”) does not take the claims out of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” or “Mental Processes” Groupings.
Therefore, at step 2a prong 1, Yes, Claims 1-15 recite an abstract idea. We proceed onto analyzing the claims at step 2a prong 2.
Step 2A Prong Two: With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP § 2106.04(d)), the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Independent Claim 1 recites additional elements directed to: (e.g., “matching support system” & “information processing apparatus” & “processor” & “storage device” & “difficulty level determination portion” & “first extraction portion” & “second extraction portion”). Independent Claim 10 recites additional elements directed to: (e.g., “information processing apparatus” & “processor” & “storage device” & “difficulty level determination portion” & “first extraction portion” & “second extraction portion”). These additional elements have been considered individually and in combination, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using generic computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and MPEP § 2106.05(h). The system is configured by "an information processing apparatus having a processor and a storage device," which are standard, off-the-shelf computer components. The actions described—storing information, determining difficulty levels, and extracting candidates based on criteria—are routine, conventional data manipulation techniques that do not improve the functioning of the computer itself, but rather use it as a tool to automate a manual task. No Specific Improvement: These claims focus on what is being matched (using reliability and expertise as parameters) rather than how the computer is specifically configured to perform the matching more efficiently in a technical sense.
In addition, these limitations fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, at step 2a prong 2, Claims 1-15 are directed to the abstract idea and do not recite additional elements that integrate into a practical application.
Step 2B: (As explained in MPEP § 2106.05), it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (e.g., “matching support system” & “information processing apparatus” & “processor” & “storage device” & “difficulty level determination portion” & “first extraction portion” & “second extraction portion”). Independent Claim 10 recites additional elements directed to: (e.g., “information processing apparatus” & “processor” & “storage device” & “difficulty level determination portion” & “first extraction portion” & “second extraction portion”).
These elements have been considered individually and in combination, but fail to add significantly more to the claims because they amount to using computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (computing environment) and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See MPEP § 2106.05 (h) and See MPEP § 2106.05 (f). Notably, Applicant’s Specification suggests that the claimed invention relies on nothing more than a computer executing the instructions to implement the invention (see at least Applicant’s Specification ¶ [0124]: “These are connected to one another so as to be able to communicate with one another via a bus or a communication cable. Examples of the information processing apparatus 10 include a personal computer, a server device, a smartphone, a tablet, an office computer, a general-purpose machine (mainframe), and the like.”).
Furthermore, in Independent Claims 1 and 10, even if the steps of “storing data” (e.g., “storing basic information that is information about each of a plurality of providers” (see Independent Claim 1) & “a step of storing basic information that is information about each of a plurality of the providers” (see Independent Claim 10)) are evaluated as additional elements, these activities have been recognized as Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional (WURC), and thus insufficient to add significantly more to the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.05(d) ii - Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc.,793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115USPQ2d at 1092-93. The steps of analyzing a request's difficulty, checking reliability scores, and sorting by expertise are standard business practices (a "human mind" process). The system performs these actions using generic information processing apparatus (processor, storage). The claims do not improve the functioning of the computer itself, but merely use it to automate a manual matching process. Lack of Inventive Concept: The limitations merely instruct the computer to perform the abstract idea "with a computer" rather than providing a specific, novel technological solution to a computing problem.
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that, as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent Claims 2-9 and 11-15 recite additional elements directed to: (e.g., “user interface” (see Dependent Claims 4, 6, 11 and 13), “the matching support system” (Dependent Claim 5) & “the difficulty level determination portion” (Dependent Claim 5), “first extraction portion” (Dependent Claim 5), “second extraction portion” (Dependent Claim 5), “third extraction portion” (Dependent Claim 5), “the matching support system” (Dependent Claim 5) & “a workload determination portion” (Dependent Claim 5), “a recommendation section” (Dependent Claims 6 and 8-9), “a client evaluation registration section” (Dependent Claims 8-9), “a desired client level registration section” (Dependent Claims 8-9), etc…), and when considered individually and as an ordered combination (as a whole) with the limitations recite the same abstract idea(s) as shown in Independent Claims 1 and 10 along with further steps/details that could be performed as “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” which pertains to (1) fundamental economic practice or (2) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including teachings or following rules or instructions) and additionally or alternatively as “Mental Processes” which pertains to (3) concepts performed in the human mind (including observations or evaluations or judgments) or (4) using pen and paper as a physical aid.
Dependent Claims 2-3, 7, 12 and 14-15 further narrow the abstract ideas, and are therefore still ineligible for the reasons previously provided in Steps 2A Prong 2 and 2B for Independent Claims 1 and 10. Dependent Claims 4-6, 8-11 and 13: With respect to reliance on (e.g., “user interface” (see Dependent Claims 4, 6, 11 and 13), “the matching support system” (Dependent Claim 5) & “the difficulty level determination portion” (Dependent Claim 5), “first extraction portion” (Dependent Claim 5), “second extraction portion” (Dependent Claim 5), “third extraction portion” (Dependent Claim 5), “the matching support system” (Dependent Claim 5) & “a workload determination portion” (Dependent Claim 5), “a recommendation section” (Dependent Claims 6 and 8-9), “a client evaluation registration section” (Dependent Claims 8-9), “a desired client level registration section” (Dependent Claims 8-9) & “information processing apparatus” (Dependent Claim 11)) as additional elements shown in Dependent Claims 4-6, 8-11 and 13 when considered individually and as an ordered combination (as a whole) in view of these claim limitations, this additional element does not provide limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application under step 2a prong 2 and also do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions under step 2B due to: (1) simply restricting the abstract concept of matching to a specific field (service provider matching) using generic computer storage does not provide an inventive concept (see MPEP § 2106.05 (h)) or (2) that the steps are merely instructions to apply a mental process or business method using a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05 (f)). No Technical Improvement: The system and method of these claims do not improve the functioning of the computer itself, but rather uses a computer to automate a manual business process of matching providers to clients.
Furthermore, certain/ particular claim limitations recited in Dependent Claims 8-9 and 14-15 demonstrate “receiving data” & “storing data” such as (e.g., “a client evaluation registration section that receives and stores, from the provider, an evaluation of the client from whom a request is received in the past” (see Independent Claims 8-9) & “a desired client level registration section that receives and stores, from the provider, a desired client level that is a threshold value of evaluation used to determine a desired client” (see Independent Claims 8-9) & a step of receiving and storing, from the provider, an evaluation of the client from whom a request is received in the past” (see Independent Claims 14-15) & “a step of receiving and storing, from the provider, a desired client that is a threshold value of evaluation used to determine a desired client” (see Independent Claims 14-15)) are evaluated as additional elements, these activities at most amount to insignificant extra-solution activities, which has been recognized as Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional (WURC), and thus insufficient to add significantly more to the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.05(d) ii - Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network). See MPEP § 2106.05(d) ii - Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc.,793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115USPQ2d at 1092-93.
The ordered combination of elements in the Dependent Claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, under Step 2B, Claims 1-15 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions. Thus, Claims 1-15 are ineligible with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 101 analysis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. Claims 1-4, 8, 10-11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US 2015/0278903 A1) hereinafter Amjadi, and in view of US PG Pub (US 2014/0350981 A1) hereinafter Uesugi, et. al.
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Amjadi matching support system teaches the following:
- that supports matching between a client and a provider of a service in a case where the client requests the provider of the service to provide the service (see at least Amjadi: ¶ [0023] & ¶ [0031] & ¶ [0046-0047]. Amjadi notes a process and a system for matching consumers with service providers. As used herein, the term “matching” is defined to mean coordinating consumers with or directing or guiding consumers to one or more service providers that are capable of performing services for the consumers, according to consumer criteria. In other words, the term refers to coordinating consumers with a focused set of service provider options that match consumer criteria, as opposed to pairing up a given consumer with a specific service provider. See also Amjadi at ¶ [0031]: A consumer may be provided with a consumer account that permits the consumer to access such that the consumer can request to be matched with a service provider for the purposes of obtaining a service. Additionally, a service provider may be provided with a service provider account that permits the service provider so as to be matched with a consumer for purposes of providing a service. See also Amjadi at ¶ [abstract] & Fig. 3.);
- the matching support system being configured by using an information processing apparatus having a processor and a storage device (see at least Amjadi: Fig. 1 & ¶ [0023-0024] & ¶ [0029]. Amjadi notes the processing elements may include processors, microprocessors, microcontrollers, field programmable gate arrays, and the like, or combinations thereof. The memory elements may also be known as a “computer-readable storage medium” and may include random access memory (RAM), read only memory (ROM), flash drive memory, floppy disks, hard disk drives, optical storage media such as compact discs (CDs or CDROMs), digital video disc (DVD), Blu-Ray™, and the like, or combinations thereof.)
- storing basic information that is information about each of a plurality of the providers (see at least Amjadi: ¶ [abstract] & ¶ [0044-0047] & Figs. 3-5. Amjadi teaches providing for a plurality of service providers to provide service provider profile data for storage in the database associated with the server 102 of the system 100. The service provider profile data will be used to determine which service providers are presented to the consumers. The service request data of the consumer can be compared with such service provider profile data stored in the database so as to determine appropriate service providers to be presented to the consumer. Amjadi notes providing for a plurality of service providers to provide service provider profile data for storage in the database.)
- storing request information that is information about a request received from the client (see at least Amjadi: ¶ [0035-0038] & ¶ [0044-0046]. Amjadi teaches that upon a consumer logging on to the electronic resource, the consumer may be presented with a service request upload screen 200, such as illustrated in FIG. 2, which allows a user to upload service request data from the consumer's computing device 104 to the server device 102. The service request data may include a service item in the form of a legal document. See also Amjadi at ¶ [0038]: FIG. 3, such other service request data may include client information that is required to be input via client information screen 300. Such client information may include information associated with the consumer (or other entity that is to be the primary party of interest of the service item to be reviewed if not the consumer). The client information may identify whether the consumer is an individual or an entity. The client information may also indicate an occupation of the consumer, an education level of the consumer, the consumer's individual or legal name, the consumer's address (e.g., street, city, state, ZIP code), and/or the consumer's telephone number. The client information may be different from the identification information that is associated with the consumer's account. See also Amjadi at Figs. 3-5.)
- storing reliability that is information indicating a degree of reliability of each of the plurality of providers (see at least Amjadi: ¶ [0042] & ¶ [0045] & ¶ [0047-0048]: Amjadi teaches that the price may be dependent on the experience level of the service provider. For example, if the consumer wishes to have their legal contract reviewed by a service provider (e.g., attorney or law firm) with a significant amount of experience (e.g., more than 10 years' experience), then such a service may have a higher price than a service performed by a service provider with less experience (e.g., less than 3 years' experience). See also Amjadi at [0045]: The service provider profile data that is required to be provided by the service providers may also include an experience level of the service provider (e.g., years of practice). See also Amjadi at [0047-0048]: The consumer may choose to be presented with service providers that are located within 15, 25, 50, 100, or 200 miles from a given zip code and that have experience in a particular practice area (e.g., employment law) or that have a certain number of years' experience (e.g., more than five years' experience). The consumer can review relevant information included on the service provider's website, such as the service provider's background, years of experience, areas of practice, or the like. See also Amjadi at Figs. 3-5.)
- storing information that indicates expertise of each of the providers for the service (see at least Amjadi: ¶ [0046-0048] & Figs. 3-5. Amjadi teaches that the matching criteria may include the address of the consumer being within the jurisdiction of the service provider. Furthermore still, the matching criteria may include the subject matter of the legal contract being associated with the practice area of the service provider. See also Amjadi at ¶ [0048] & Fig. 5: The consumer can review relevant information included on the service provider's website, such as the service provider's background, years of experience, areas of practice, or the like. The consumer may choose to be presented with service providers that are located within 15, 25, 50, 100, or 200 miles from a given zip code and that have experience in a particular practice area (e.g., employment law) or that have a certain number of years' experience (e.g., more than five years' experience).)
Amjadi matching support system for supporting matching between a client and a provider of a service in a case where the client requests the provider of the service to provide the service does not explicitly disclose, but Uesugi in the analogous art for matching support system for supporting matching between a client and a provider of a service in a case where the client requests the provider of the service to provide the service teaches the following limitations:
- a difficulty level determination portion that determines a difficulty level of the request based on the request information (see at least Uesugi: ¶ [0046-0049] & Figs. 7-9. Uesugi teaches that the difficulty definition table 702 includes the following data items. That is, “case type” described in the case management table 701, and “degree of difficulty” showing the difficulty in completing each case type. The service request level definition table 704 includes “degree of difficulty”, “customer rank”, and “service request level” that is determined by the two items. The meanings of the former two items are the same as the “degree of difficulty” of the difficulty definition table 702 and the “customer rank” of the customer management table 800. The period definition table 705 includes the following data items. That is, “case type” described in the difficulty definition table 702, “standard allocation grace period” which is the parameter required for the determination of the allocation grace period shown in FIG. 3, and “standard allocation period” which is the parameter required for the determination of the non-allocation period shown in FIG. 3.)
- a first extraction portion that extracts candidates of the providers of the service from the basic information so as to extract the provider having a higher reliability for the request having a higher difficulty level and that generates a first extraction result describing extracting results (see at least Uesugi: ¶ [0043-0046] & Figs. 4-5 & Figs. 7-9. Uesugi teaches that the allocation calculation function 601 extracts the “sales staff ID” with the “status” unallocated in the service provider management table 900, and extracts the ability score (described below) of the particular “sales staff ID” from the service provider management table 900. Then, the allocation calculation function 601 extracts the “compatibility point” by substituting the information of the “customer ID” and the “sales staff ID” into a compatibility table 802. Then, the allocation calculation function 601 adds the ability score and the “compatibility point” to obtain the total score of the “sales staff ID. See also Uesugi at ¶ [0033] & ¶ [0038].);
- a second extraction portion that extracts candidates of the providers of the service from the first extraction result so as to extract the provider having higher expertise in the service for the request having a higher difficulty level and that generates a second extraction result describing extracted results (see at least Uesugi: ¶ [0033] & ¶ [0038] & ¶ [0043-0046]. Uesugi notes that the allocation calculation function 601 obtains the value of the “service request level” of the case from a case management table 701. In other words, the allocation calculation function 601 extracts the “sales staff ID” with the “status” unallocated in the service provider management table 900, and extracts the ability score (described below) of the particular “sales staff ID” from the service provider management table 900. Then, the allocation calculation function 601 extracts the “compatibility point” by substituting the information of the “customer ID” and the “sales staff ID” into a compatibility table 802. See also Uesugi teaches at ¶ [0033]: By performing the batch allocation, a salesperson with a higher ability score can be allocated to a case with a higher service request level. Thus, it is possible to allocate the right person to the right place, and to reduce mismatching probability. In other words, this leads to increasing the degree of customer satisfaction. At the same time, the batch allocation has the side effects of keeping the customer waiting. See also Uesugi at ¶ [0046]: The “service request level” is set by the service provision request receiving device 615 with a value obtained by extracting the “case type” of the case management table 701, the “degree of difficulty” of the difficulty definition table 702, the “customer ID” of the case management table 701, and the “customer rank” of the customer management table 800, and by substituting the “degree of difficulty” and the “customer rank” into the service request level definition table 704. With respect to the “sales staff ID”, the allocation calculation function process 601 sets a combination of the “case ID” and the “sales staff ID”, which is the result of the batch allocation of the process 504 or 505, to the case management table 701. See also Uesugi at Fig. 5 & Figs. 7-9.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Amjadi matching support system for supporting matching between a client and a provider of a service in a case where the client requests the provider of the service to provide the service with the aforementioned teachings of: a difficulty level determination portion that determines a difficulty level of the request based on the request information & a first extraction portion that extracts candidates of the providers of the service from the basic information so as to extract the provider having a higher reliability for the request having a higher difficulty level and that generates a first extraction result describing extracting results & a second extraction portion that extracts candidates of the providers of the service from the first extraction result so as to extract the provider having higher expertise in the service for the request having a higher difficulty level and that generates a second extraction result describing extracted results, and in further view of Uesugi, whereby the allocation calculation function 601 extracts the “sales staff ID” with the “status” unallocated in the service provider management table 900, and extracts the ability score of the particular “sales staff ID” from the service provider management table 900. Then, the allocation calculation function 601 extracts the “compatibility point” by substituting the information of the “customer ID” and the “sales staff ID” into a compatibility table 802. Then, the allocation calculation function 601 adds the ability score and the “compatibility point” to obtain the total score of the “sales staff ID”. Note that, for example, if the “case type” of the case is a medical insurance proposal, the ability score corresponds to the value of the “medical insurance knowledge level” of the service provider management table 900 (see at least Uesugi: ¶ [0043].). Here, until the case average allocation time reaches a certain value, the advantage of putting the right person to the right place by the batch allocation is greater than the disadvantage due to the allocation being extended, resulting in an increase in the degree of customer satisfaction (see at least Uesugi: ¶ [0033].).
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field for supporting matching between a client and a provider of a service in a case where the client requests the provider of the service to provide the service, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Uesugi, the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Independent Claim 10, Amjadi matching support method teaches the following:
- support matching between a client and a provider of a service in a case where the client requests the provider of the service to provide the service (see at least Amjadi: ¶ [0023] & ¶ [0031] & ¶ [0046-0047]. Amjadi notes a process and a system for matching consumers with service providers. As used herein, the term “matching” is defined to mean coordinating consumers with or directing or guiding consumers to one or more service providers that are capable of performing services for the consumers, according to consumer criteria. In other words, the term refers to coordinating consumers with a focused set of service provider options that match consumer criteria, as opposed to pairing up a given consumer with a specific service provider. See also Amjadi at ¶ [0031]: A consumer may be provided with a consumer account that permits the consumer to access such that the consumer can request to be matched with a service provider for the purposes of obtaining a service. Additionally, a service provider may be provided with a service provider account that permits the service provider so as to be matched with a consumer for purposes of providing a service. See also Amjadi at ¶ [abstract] & Fig. 3.);
- wherein an information processing apparatus having a processor and a storage device (see at least Amjadi: Fig. 1 & ¶ [0023-0024] & ¶ [0029]. Amjadi notes the processing elements may include processors, microprocessors, microcontrollers, field programmable gate arrays, and the like, or combinations thereof. The memory elements may also be known as a “computer-readable storage medium” and may include random access memory (RAM), read only memory (ROM), flash drive memory, floppy disks, hard disk drives, optical storage media such as compact discs (CDs or CDROMs), digital video disc (DVD), Blu-Ray™, and the like, or combinations thereof.)
executes:
- a step of storing basic information that is information about each of a plurality of the providers (see at least Amjadi: ¶ [abstract] & ¶ [0044-0047] & Figs. 3-5. Amjadi teaches providing for a plurality of service providers to provide service provider profile data for storage in the database associated with the server 102 of the system 100. The service provider profile data will be used to determine which service providers are presented to the consumers. The service request data of the consumer can be compared with such service provider profile data stored in the database so as to determine appropriate service providers to be presented to the consumer. Amjadi notes providing for a plurality of service providers to provide service provider profile data for storage in the database.);
- a step of storing request information that is information about a request received from the client (see at least Amjadi: ¶ [0035-0038] & ¶ [0044-0046] & Figs. 3-5. Amjadi teaches that upon a consumer logging on to the electronic resource, the consumer may be presented with a service request upload screen 200, such as illustrated in FIG. 2, which allows a user to upload service request data from the consumer's computing device 104 to the server device 102. The service request data may include a service item in the form of a legal document. See also Amjadi at ¶ [0038]: FIG. 3, such other service request data may include client information that is required to be input via client information screen 300. Such client information may include information associated with the consumer (or other entity that is to be the primary party of interest of the service item to be reviewed if not the consumer). The client information may identify whether the consumer is an individual or an entity. The client information may also indicate an occupation of the consumer, an education level of the consumer, the consumer's individual or legal name, the consumer's address (e.g., street, city, state, ZIP code), and/or the consumer's telephone number. The client information may be different from the identification information that is associated with the consumer's account. See also Amjadi at Figs. 3-5.)
- storing reliability that is information indicating a degree of reliability of each of the plurality of providers (see at least Amjadi: ¶ [0042] & ¶ [0045] & ¶ [0047-0048]: Amjadi teaches that the price may be dependent on the experience level of the service provider. For example, if the consumer wishes to have their legal contract reviewed by a service provider (e.g., attorney or law firm) with a significant amount of experience (e.g., more than 10 years' experience), then such a service may have a higher price than a service performed by a service provider with less experience (e.g., less than 3 years' experience). See also Amjadi at [0045]: The service provider profile data that is required to be provided by the service providers may also include an experience level of the service provider (e.g., years of practice). See also Amjadi at [0047-0048]: The consumer may choose to be presented with service providers that are located within 15, 25, 50, 100, or 200 miles from a given zip code and that have experience in a particular practice area (e.g., employment law) or that have a certain number of years' experience (e.g., more than five years' experience). The consumer can review relevant information included on the service provider's website, such as the service provider's background, years of experience, areas of practice, or the like. See also Amjadi at Figs. 3-5.)
- storing information that indicates expertise of each of the providers for the service (see at least Amjadi: ¶ [0046-0048] & Figs. 3-5. Amjadi teaches that the matching criteria may include the address of the consumer being within the jurisdiction of the service provider. Furthermore still, the matching criteria may include the subject matter of the legal contract being associated with the practice area of the service provider. See also Amjadi at ¶ [0048] & Fig. 5: The consumer can review relevant information included on the service provider's website, such as the service provider's background, years of experience, areas of practice, or the like. The consumer may choose to be presented with service providers that are located within 15, 25, 50, 100, or 200 miles from a given zip code and that have experience in a particular practice area (e.g., employment law) or that have a certain number of years' experience (e.g., more than five years' experience).)
Amjadi matching support method for supporting matching between a client and a provider of a service in a case where the client requests the provider of the service to provide the service does not explicitly disclose, but Uesugi in the analogous art for matching support system for supporting matching between a client and a provider of a service in a case where the client requests the provider of the service to provide the service teaches the following limitations:
- a step of determining a difficulty level of the request based on the request information (see at least Uesugi: ¶ [0046-0049] & Figs. 7-9. Uesugi teaches that the difficulty definition table 702 includes the following data items. That is, “case type” described in the case management table 701, and “degree of difficulty” showing the difficulty in completing each case type. The service request level definition table 704 includes “degree of difficulty”, “customer rank”, and “service request level” that is determined by the two items. The meanings of the former two items are the same as the “degree of difficulty” of the difficulty definition table 702 and the “customer rank” of the customer management table 800. The period definition table 705 includes the following data items. That is, “case type” described in the difficulty definition table 702, “standard allocation grace period” which is the parameter required for the determination of the allocation grace period shown in FIG. 3, and “standard allocation period” which is the parameter required for the determination of the non-allocation period shown in FIG. 3.);
- a step of extracting candidates of the providers of the service from the basic information so as to extract the provider having a higher reliability for the request having a higher difficulty level and that generates a first extraction result describing extracting results (see at least Uesugi: ¶ [0043-0046] & Figs. 4-5 & Figs. 7-9. Uesugi teaches that the allocation calculation function 601 extracts the “sales staff ID” with the “status” unallocated in the service provider management table 900, and extracts the ability score (described below) of the particular “sales staff ID” from the service provider management table 900. Then, the allocation calculation function 601 extracts the “compatibility point” by substituting the information of the “customer ID” and the “sales staff ID” into a compatibility table 802. Then, the allocation calculation function 601 adds the ability score and the “compatibility point” to obtain the total score of the “sales staff ID. See also Uesugi at ¶ [0033] & ¶ [0038].);
- a step of extracting candidates of the providers of the service from the first extraction result so as to extract the provider having higher expertise in the service for the request having a higher difficulty level and that generates a second extraction result describing extracted results (see at least Uesugi: ¶ [0033] & ¶ [0038] & ¶ [0043-0046]. Uesugi notes that the allocation calculation function 601 obtains the value of the “service request level” of the case from a case management table 701. In other words, the allocation calculation function 601 extracts the “sales staff ID” with the “status” unallocated in the service provider management table 900, and extracts the ability score (described below) of the particular “sales staff ID” from the service provider management table 900. Then, the allocation calculation function 601 extracts the “compatibility point” by substituting the information of the “customer ID” and the “sales staff ID” into a compatibility table 802. See also Uesugi teaches at ¶ [0033]: By performing the batch allocation, a salesperson with a higher ability score can be allocated to a case with a higher service request level. Thus, it is possible to allocate the right person to the right place, and to reduce mismatching probability. In other words, this leads to increasing the degree of customer satisfaction. At the same time, the batch allocation has the side effects of keeping the customer waiting. See also Uesugi at ¶ [0046]: The “service request level” is set by the service provision request receiving device 615 with a value obtained by extracting the “case type” of the case management table 701, the “degree of difficulty” of the difficulty definition table 702, the “customer ID” of the case management table 701, and the “customer rank” of the customer management table 800, and by substituting the “degree of difficulty” and the “customer rank” into the service request level definition table 704. With respect to the “sales staff ID”, the allocation calculation function process 601 sets a combination of the “case ID” and the “sales staff ID”, which is the result of the batch allocation of the process 504 or 505, to the case management table 701. See also Uesugi at Figs. 4-5 & Figs. 7-9.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Amjadi matching support method for supporting matching between a client and a provider of a service in a case where the client requests the provider of the service to provide the service with the aforementioned teachings of: a step of determining a difficulty level of the request based on the request information & a step of extracting candidates of the providers of the service from the basic information so as to extract the provider having a higher reliability for the request having a higher difficulty level and that generates a first extraction result describing extracting results & a step of extracting candidates of the providers of the service from the first extraction result so as to extract the provider having higher expertise in the service for the request having a higher difficulty level and that generates a second extraction result describing extracted results, and in further view of Uesugi, whereby the allocation calculation function 601 extracts the “sales staff ID” with the “status” unallocated in the service provider management table 900, and extracts the ability score of the particular “sales staff ID” from the service provider management table 900. Then, the allocation calculation function 601 extracts the “compatibility point” by substituting the information of the “customer ID” and the “sales staff ID” into a compatibility table 802. Then, the allocation calculation function 601 adds the ability score and the “compatibility point” to obtain the total score of the “sales staff ID”. Note that, for example, if the “case type” of the case is a medical insurance proposal, the ability score corresponds to the value of the “medical insurance knowledge level” of the service provider management table 900 (see at least Uesugi: ¶ [0043].). Here, until the case average allocation time reaches a certain value, the advantage of putting the right person to the right place by the batch allocation is greater than the disadvantage due to the allocation being extended, resulting in an increase in the degree of customer satisfaction (see at least Uesugi: ¶ [0033].).
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field for supporting matching between a client and a provider of a service in a case where the client requests the provider of the service to provide the service, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Uesugi, the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Dependent Claim 2, Amjadi / Uesugi matching support system for supporting matching between a client and a provider of a service in a case where the client requests the provider of the service to provide the service teaches the limitations of Independent Claim 1 above, and Amjadi further teaches the matching support system for supporting matching between a client and a provider of a service in a case where the client requests the provider of the service to provide the service comprising:
- wherein the reliability is calculated based on at least one of: an experience level of the provider for each field of the service, the number of cases of the service provided, and a success rate of the service (see at least Amjadi: ¶ [0042] & ¶ [0045-0048] & (Dependent Claim 4).)
Regarding Dependent Claim 3, Amjadi / Uesugi matching support system for supporting matching between a client and a provider of a service in a case where the client requests the provider of the service to provide the service teaches the limitations of Independent Claim 1 above, and Amjadi further teaches the matching support system for supporting matching between a client and a provider of a service in a case where the client requests the provider of the service to provide the service comprising:
- wherein a level of the expertise is determined based on at least one of an: experience level of the provider for each field of the service, the number of cases of the service provided for each field, evaluation of the client on the provided service, and a field of expertise received from the provider (see at least Amjadi: ¶ [0042] & ¶ [0045-0048] & ¶ [0050].)
Regarding Dependent Claim 4, Amjadi / Uesugi matching support system for supporting matching between a client and a provider of a service in a case where the client requests the provider of the service to provide the service teaches the limitations of Independent Claim 1 above, and Uesugi further teaches the matching support system for supporting matching between a client and a provider of a service in a case where the client requests the provider of the service to provide the service comprising:
- further comprising a recommendation section that presents, to the client, the candidates of the providers based on the second extraction result (see at least Uesugi: Figs. 7-9) via a user interface (see at least Uesugi: Fig. 10 & ¶ [0057].).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Amjadi / Uesugi matching support system for supporting matching between a client and a provider of a service in a case where the client requests the provider of the service to provide the service with the aforementioned teachings of: further comprising a recommendation section that presents, to the client, the candidates of the providers based on the second extraction result via a user interface, and in further view of Uesugi, whereby the allocation calculation function 601 extracts the “sales staff ID” with the “status” unallocated in the service provider management table 900, and extracts the ability score (described below) of the particular “sales staff ID” from the service provider management table 900. Then, the allocation calculation function 601 extracts the “compatibility point” by substituting the information of the “customer ID” and the “sales staff ID” into a compatibility table 802. Then, the allocation calculation function 601 adds the ability score and the “compatibility point” to obtain the total score of the “sales staff ID”. Note that, for example, if the “case type” of the case is a medical insurance proposal, the ability score corresponds to the value of the “medical insurance knowledge level” of the service provider management table (see at least Uesugi: ¶ [0043].). Moreover, Uesugi provides a section that controls the allocation to cases including the target case, according to the state relating to allocation of the other cases while reflecting the compatibility between the other service providers and the user in the particular grace period (see at least Uesugi: (Claim 1 of Uesugi)).
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field for supporting matching between a client and a provider of a service in a case where the client requests the provider of the service to provide the service, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Uesugi, the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Dependent Claims 8 and 14, Amjadi / Uesugi matching support system / matching support method for supporting matching between a client and a provider of a service in a case where the client requests the provider of the service to provide the service teaches the limitations of Claims 1, 4 and 10-11 above, and Uesugi further teaches the matching support system / matching support method for supporting matching between a client and a provider of a service in a case where the client requests the provider of the service to provide the service comprising:
- a client evaluation registration section that receives and stores, from the provider, an evaluation of the client from whom a request is received in the past (see at least Uesugi: ¶ [0053] & Figs. 3-5 & Figs. 7-9. Uesugi notes that the “negotiation ID” described in the customer management table 800, “sales staff ID” that identifies the salesperson, “negotiation date” that indicates the date and time when the negotiation occurs, “sales results” that indicates the business outcomes (results) obtained through the particular negotiation, and “feedback point” which is the evaluation point of the salesperson. The determination method of the “negotiation ID” is the same as that described in the customer management table 800. The “sales staff ID” is set by the allocation calculation function 601 with the value of the “sales staff ID” of the case management table 701. The value of the “sales results” is set by the salesperson with the result value. The value of the “feedback point” is set by either of the following two methods. The particular salesperson inputs the evaluation results obtained from the customer (for example, asked to “continuously provide advice on other insurance products” by the customer, etc.), or the other salesperson inputs the results of the questionnaire conducted on the customer (the degree of customer satisfaction, etc.).
- a desired client level registration section that receives and stores, from the provider, a desired client level that is a threshold value of evaluation used to determine a desired client (see at least Uesugi: ¶ [0038] & Figs. 3-5 & Figs. 7-9);
- wherein the recommendation section does not present, to the client, a provider that does not meet the desired client level in the evaluation of the client, among the candidates of the providers based on the second extraction result (see at least Uesugi: ¶ [0039] & Figs. 3-5 & Figs. 7-9. Uesugi teaches that it is rational to monitor whether the case 406 is not completed, without allocating any salesperson to the case 404 as long as it does not reach the allocation due time. The monitoring period corresponds to the period 408. The same concept can be applied to the case 405. The service request level of the case 405 is the third highest of the four cases. However, if there is a completion report of the case 406, it is possible to have the salesperson A with the second highest ability score. Further, if the case 404 is also completed, it is possible to have the salesperson C with the highest ability score. Thus, it is rational to monitor whether the case 406 or 404 is not completed, without allocating any salesperson as long as the particular case does not reach the allocation due time. The monitoring period corresponds to the period 409. The case 404 continues to be monitored during the period 408 and the case 405 continues to be monitored during the period 409. As a result, the case 406 reaches the allocation grace start time 413. At this time, the case 406 is the case with the highest service request level, so that it is possible to have the salesperson C with the highest ability score. Further, the case 407 does not reach the allocation grace start time at this time.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Amjadi / Uesugi matching support system / matching support method for supporting matching between a client and a provider of a service in a case where the client requests the provider of the service to provide the service with the aforementioned teachings of: a client evaluation registration section that receives and stores, from the provider, an evaluation of the client from whom a request is received in the past; a desired client level registration section that receives and stores, from the provider, a desired client level that is a threshold value of evaluation used to determine a desired client, wherein the recommendation section does not present, to the client, a provider that does not meet the desired client level in the evaluation of the client, among the candidates of the providers based on the second extraction result, and in further view of Uesugi, whereby the allocation calculation function 601 extracts the “sales staff ID” with the “status” unallocated in the service provider management table 900, and extracts the ability score (described below) of the particular “sales staff ID” from the service provider management table 900. Then, the allocation calculation function 601 extracts the “compatibility point” by substituting the information of the “customer ID” and the “sales staff ID” into a compatibility table 802. Then, the allocation calculation function 601 adds the ability score and the “compatibility point” to obtain the total score of the “sales staff ID”. Note that, for example, if the “case type” of the case is a medical insurance proposal, the ability score corresponds to the value of the “medical insurance knowledge level” of the service provider management table (see at least Uesugi: ¶ [0043].). Moreover, Uesugi provides a section that controls the allocation to cases including the target case, according to the state relating to allocation of the other cases while reflecting the compatibility between the other service providers and the user in the particular grace period (see at least Uesugi: (Claim 1 of Uesugi)).
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field for supporting matching between a client and a provider of a service in a case where the client requests the provider of the service to provide the service, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Uesugi, the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Dependent Claim 11, Amjadi / Uesugi matching support method for supporting matching between a client and a provider of a service in a case where the client requests the provider of the service to provide the service teaches the limitations of Independent Claim 10 above, and Uesugi further teaches the matching support method for supporting matching between a client and a provider of a service in a case where the client requests the provider of the service to provide the service comprising:
- wherein the information processing apparatus further executes a step of presenting, to the client, the candidates of the providers based on the second extraction result (see at least Uesugi: Figs. 7-9) via a user interface (see at least Uesugi: Fig. 10 & ¶ [0057].).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Amjadi / Uesugi matching support method for supporting matching between a client and a provider of a service in a case where the client requests the provider of the service to provide the service with the aforementioned teachings of: wherein the information processing apparatus further executes a step of presenting, to the client, the candidates of the providers based on the second extraction result via a user interface, and in further view of Uesugi, whereby the allocation calculation function 601 extracts the “sales staff ID” with the “status” unallocated in the service provider management table 900, and extracts the ability score (described below) of the particular “sales staff ID” from the service provider management table 900. Then, the allocation calculation function 601 extracts the “compatibility point” by substituting the information of the “customer ID” and the “sales staff ID” into a compatibility table 802. Then, the allocation calculation function 601 adds the ability score and the “compatibility point” to obtain the total score of the “sales staff ID”. Note that, for example, if the “case type” of the case is a medical insurance proposal, the ability score corresponds to the value of the “medical insurance knowledge level” of the service provider management table (see at least Uesugi: ¶ [0043].). Moreover, Uesugi provides a section that controls the allocation to cases including the target case, according to the state relating to allocation of the other cases while reflecting the compatibility between the other service providers and the user in the particular grace period (see at least Uesugi: (Claim 1 of Uesugi)).
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field for supporting matching between a client and a provider of a service in a case where the client requests the provider of the service to provide the service, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Uesugi, the results of the combination were predictable.
20. Claims 5-7, 9, 12-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG Pub (US 2015/0278903 A1) hereinafter Amjadi, in view of US PG Pub (US 2014/0350981 A1) hereinafter Uesugi, et. al., and in further view of US PG Pub (US 2020/0344353 A1) hereinafter Lahav, et. al.
Regarding Dependent Claims 5 and 12, Amjadi / Uesugi matching support system / matching support method for supporting matching between a client and a provider of a service in a case where the client requests the provider of the service to provide the service does not explicitly disclose, but Lahav in the analogous art for supporting matching between a client and a provider of a service in a case where the client requests the provider of the service to provide the service does disclose the following:
- wherein the matching support system (see at least Lahav: ¶ [0029] & ¶ [0119] & Fig. 1.) further stores a schedule of available work time of each of the providers (see at least Lahav: ¶ [0069] & ¶ [0081] & ¶ [0093] & ¶ [0116]. Lahav teaches that server 420 may receive and respond to inquiries from client device 415 for information regarding the goods or services provided at the client location 423, such as product information, an appointment schedule, hours of operation, location information, contact information, and the like. See also Lahav: ¶ [0081]: Account engine 530 can maintain data about previous communication exchanges (e.g., times, involved other device(s), channel type, resolution stage, topic(s) and/or associated client identifier), connection channels (e.g., indicating—for each of one or more clients—whether any channels exist, a terminal device associated with each channel, an establishment time, a usage frequency, a date of last use, any channel constraints and/or supported types of communication). See also Lahav: ¶ [0093]: The data generated can then be stored and presented in a timeline 740 as a history of capacity usage, which can be used in future routing of requests as workload models are updated based on performance history. See also Lahav: ¶ [0116]: If a workload is higher than predicted, new requests can be routed to other agents, delayed, or other capacity routing actions can be taken. This workload routing can include requesting a schedule later communication with new requests or pending requests that are low priority or low intensity.)
- wherein the difficulty level determination portion determines a difficulty level for each element of the request (see at least Lahav: ¶ [0101] & ¶ [0111] & (Claim 7 of Lahav). Lahav teaches that the workload model may be generated by continuous analysis of communication data from multiple communications to identify properties and factors that are associated with an identified pace at which a user may provide input or follow up and that are associated with an identified amount of work by an agent in order to interact with the user. Such properties and factors may include any parameter or metric that can be tracked regarding a communication, such as those illustrated in the example user interfaces of FIGS. 6-9. Additional factors can include communication timing, time of day, textual analyses, level of difficulty, level of activity, identified topics, history of user or agent, or current stage of the communication. See also Lahav at ¶ [0111]. Lahav teaches that the set of factors in the workload model includes at least one of a messaging medium used to request the user communication, a time of day associated with a request, a topic of the request, a level of difficulty of the request, or a stage of the request.)
- wherein the matching support system (see at least Lahav: ¶ [0029] & ¶ [0119] & Fig. 1.) further comprises a workload determination portion that calculates a workload for each difficulty level of the request (see at least Lahav: ¶ [0103] & ¶ [0118-0119]. Lahav teaches that implementations can handle any number of communications and agents, with new incoming requests parsed for analysis elements and routed based on availability calculated from complex and consistently updated availability data (e.g. current workload capacity for an agent). See also Lahav at ¶ [0119]: This information can then be aggregated in various ways to provide feedback on agent performance, updates to workload models, updates to workload prediction calculations update models to agent capacity, and can include individualized metrics on agent capacity and performance. See also Lahav at ¶ [0103].)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Amjadi / Uesugi matching support system / matching support method for supporting matching between a client and a provider of a service in a case where the client requests the provider of the service to provide the service with the aforementioned teachings of: wherein the matching support system further stores a schedule of available work time of each of the providers; wherein the difficulty level determination portion determines a difficulty level for each element of the request and wherein the matching support system further comprises a workload determination portion that calculates a workload for each difficulty level of the request, and in further view of Lahav, whereby agents available in a system to respond to such requests are associated with various factors and a current workload capacity. A workload can be assigned or measured based on factors associated with an incoming request, and this measured workload assessed against the available workload capacity of agents in the system to select and route a request to a particular agent. The use of factors from the request as described herein with a workload model to match a workload measurement for a new communication with agent capacity improves network communications and the operations of devices in such a network by efficiently using processing and communication resources, and balancing capacity to prevent parts of a system from being overwhelmed by high intensity communications with users that are not expected. The described workload models and smart capacity routes new connections in response to user requests based on workload models to improve network efficiency and avoid performance and quality issues that can occur with parts of a system being overwhelmed (see at least Lahav: ¶ [0029].)
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field for supporting matching between a client and a provider of a service in a case where the client requests the provider of the service to provide the service, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Lahav, the results of the combination were predictable.
Moreover, regarding Dependent Claims 5 and 12, Amjadi / Uesugi / Lahav matching support system / matching support method for supporting matching between a client and a provider of a service in a case where the client requests the provider of the service to provide the service supporting matching between a client and a provider of a service in a case where the client requests the provider of the service to provide the service teaches the limitations of Independent Claims 1 and 10 above, and Uesugi further teaches the matching support system / matching support method for supporting matching between a client and a provider of a service in a case where the client requests the provider of the service to provide the service supporting matching between a client and a provider of a service in a case where the client requests the provider of the service to provide the service comprising:
- wherein the first extraction portion generates the first extraction result for each difficulty level (see at least Uesugi: Figs. 3-5 & Figs. 7-9. Uesugi teaches that Figs. 3-5 for the iterative allocations in decreasing order to availability or competence.);
- wherein the second extraction portion generates the second extraction result for each difficulty level (see at least Uesugi: Figs. 3-5 & Figs. 7-9. Uesugi teaches that Figs. 3-5 for the iterative allocations in decreasing order to availability or competence.);
- wherein the matching support system further comprises a third extraction portion that extracts a combination of the providers, each of which is capable of handling the workload for each difficulty level, in the second extraction result for each difficulty level and that generates a third extraction result describing the extracted combination (see at least Uesugi: Figs. 3-5 & Figs. 7-9 & ¶ [0044-0049].).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Amjadi / Uesugi / Lahav matching support system / matching support method for supporting matching between a client and a provider of a service in a case where the client requests the provider of the service to provide the service with the aforementioned teachings of: wherein the information processing apparatus further executes a step of presenting, to the client, the candidates of the providers based on the second extraction result via a user interface, and in further view of Uesugi, whereby the allocation calculation function 601 extracts the “sales staff ID” with the “status” unallocated in the service provider management table 900, and extracts the ability score (described below) of the particular “sales staff ID” from the service provider management table 900. Then, the allocation calculation function 601 extracts the “compatibility point” by substituting the information of the “customer ID” and the “sales staff ID” into a compatibility table 802. Then, the allocation calculation function 601 adds the ability score and the “compatibility point” to obtain the total score of the “sales staff ID”. Note that, for example, if the “case type” of the case is a medical insurance proposal, the ability score corresponds to the value of the “medical insurance knowledge level” of the service provider management table (see at least Uesugi: ¶ [0043].). Moreover, Uesugi provides a section that controls the allocation to cases including the target case, according to the state relating to allocation of the other cases while reflecting the compatibility between the other service providers and the user in the particular grace period (see at least Uesugi: (Claim 1 of Uesugi)).
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field for supporting matching between a client and a provider of a service in a case where the client requests the provider of the service to provide the service, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Uesugi, the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Dependent Claims 6 and 13, Amjadi / Uesugi / Lahav matching support system / matching support method for supporting matching between a client and a provider of a service in a case where the client requests the provider of the service to provide the service teaches the limitations of Claims 1, 5, 10 and 12 above, and Uesugi further teaches the matching support system / matching support method for supporting matching between a client and a provider of a service in a case where the client requests the provider of the service to provide the service comprising:
- further comprising a recommendation section that presents, to the client, the candidates of the providers based on the third extraction result via a user interface (see at least Uesugi: Figs. 3-5 & Figs. 7-9 & ¶ [0039].).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Amjadi / Uesugi / Lahav matching support system / matching support method for supporting matching between a client and a provider of a service in a case where the client requests the provider of the service to provide the service with the aforementioned teachings of: further comprising a recommendation section that presents, to the client, the candidates of the providers based on the third extraction result via a user interface, and in further view of Uesugi, whereby the allocation calculation function 601 extracts the “sales staff ID” with the “status” unallocated in the service provider management table 900, and extracts the ability score (described below) of the particular “sales staff ID” from the service provider management table 900. Then, the allocation calculation function 601 extracts the “compatibility point” by substituting the information of the “customer ID” and the “sales staff ID” into a compatibility table 802. Then, the allocation calculation function 601 adds the ability score and the “compatibility point” to obtain the total score of the “sales staff ID”. Note that, for example, if the “case type” of the case is a medical insurance proposal, the ability score corresponds to the value of the “medical insurance knowledge level” of the service provider management table (see at least Uesugi: ¶ [0043].). Moreover, Uesugi provides a section that controls the allocation to cases including the target case, according to the state relating to allocation of the other cases while reflecting the compatibility between the other service providers and the user in the particular grace period (see at least Uesugi: (Claim 1 of Uesugi)).
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field for supporting matching between a client and a provider of a service in a case where the client requests the provider of the service to provide the service, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Uesugi, the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Dependent Claim 7, Amjadi / Uesugi / Lahav matching support system for supporting matching between a client and a provider of a service in a case where the client requests the provider of the service to provide the service teaches the limitations of Claims 1 and 5 above, and Uesugi further teaches the matching support system for supporting matching between a client and a provider of a service in a case where the client requests the provider of the service to provide the service comprising:
- wherein the providers constituting the combination are included in combinations of providers belonging to different organizations (see at least Uesugi: ¶ [0043] & Figs. 3-5 & Figs. 7-9. Examiner notes that Uesugi teaches providers in the different insurance areas such as medical insurance and life insurance. Moreover, in ¶ [0043] that the allocation calculation function 601 extracts the “compatibility point” by substituting the information of the “customer ID” and the “sales staff ID” into a compatibility table 802. Then, the allocation calculation function 601 adds the ability score and the “compatibility point” to obtain the total score of the “sales staff ID”. Note that, for example, if the “case type” of the case is a medical insurance proposal, the ability score corresponds to the value of the “medical insurance knowledge level” of the service provider management table 900.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Amjadi / Uesugi / Lahav matching support system for supporting matching between a client and a provider of a service in a case where the client requests the provider of the service to provide the service with the aforementioned teachings of: wherein the providers constituting the combination are included in combinations of providers belonging to different organizations, and in further view of Uesugi, whereby the allocation calculation function 601 extracts the “sales staff ID” with the “status” unallocated in the service provider management table 900, and extracts the ability score (described below) of the particular “sales staff ID” from the service provider management table 900. Then, the allocation calculation function 601 extracts the “compatibility point” by substituting the information of the “customer ID” and the “sales staff ID” into a compatibility table 802. Then, the allocation calculation function 601 adds the ability score and the “compatibility point” to obtain the total score of the “sales staff ID”. Note that, for example, if the “case type” of the case is a medical insurance proposal, the ability score corresponds to the value of the “medical insurance knowledge level” of the service provider management table (see at least Uesugi: ¶ [0043].). Moreover, Uesugi provides a section that controls the allocation to cases including the target case, according to the state relating to allocation of the other cases while reflecting the compatibility between the other service providers and the user in the particular grace period (see at least Uesugi: (Claim 1 of Uesugi)).
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field for supporting matching between a client and a provider of a service in a case where the client requests the provider of the service to provide the service, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Uesugi, the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Dependent Claims 9 and 15, Amjadi / Uesugi / Lahav matching support system / matching support method for supporting matching between a client and a provider of a service in a case where the client requests the provider of the service to provide the service teaches the limitations of Claims 1, 5-6, 10 and 12-13 above, and Uesugi further teaches the matching support system / matching support method for supporting matching between a client and a provider of a service in a case where the client requests the provider of the service to provide the service comprising:
- a client evaluation registration section that receives and stores, from the provider, an evaluation of the client from whom a request is received in the past (see at least Uesugi: ¶ [0053] & Figs. 3-5 & Figs. 7-9. Uesugi notes that the “negotiation ID” described in the customer management table 800, “sales staff ID” that identifies the salesperson, “negotiation date” that indicates the date and time when the negotiation occurs, “sales results” that indicates the business outcomes (results) obtained through the particular negotiation, and “feedback point” which is the evaluation point of the salesperson. The determination method of the “negotiation ID” is the same as that described in the customer management table 800. The “sales staff ID” is set by the allocation calculation function 601 with the value of the “sales staff ID” of the case management table 701. The value of the “sales results” is set by the salesperson with the result value. The value of the “feedback point” is set by either of the following two methods. The particular salesperson inputs the evaluation results obtained from the customer (for example, asked to “continuously provide advice on other insurance products” by the customer, etc.), or the other salesperson inputs the results of the questionnaire conducted on the customer (the degree of customer satisfaction, etc.).
- a desired client level registration section that receives and stores, from the provider, a desired client level that is a threshold value of evaluation used to determine a desired client (see at least Uesugi: ¶ [0038] & Figs. 3-5 & Figs. 7-9);
- wherein the recommendation section does not present, to the client, a provider that does not meet the desired client level in the evaluation of the client, among the candidates of the providers based on the third extraction result (see at least Uesugi: ¶ [0039] & Figs. 3-5 & Figs. 7-9. Uesugi teaches that it is rational to monitor whether the case 406 is not completed, without allocating any salesperson to the case 404 as long as it does not reach the allocation due time. The monitoring period corresponds to the period 408. The same concept can be applied to the case 405. The service request level of the case 405 is the third highest of the four cases. However, if there is a completion report of the case 406, it is possible to have the salesperson A with the second highest ability score. Further, if the case 404 is also completed, it is possible to have the salesperson C with the highest ability score. Thus, it is rational to monitor whether the case 406 or 404 is not completed, without allocating any salesperson as long as the particular case does not reach the allocation due time. The monitoring period corresponds to the period 409. The case 404 continues to be monitored during the period 408 and the case 405 continues to be monitored during the period 409. As a result, the case 406 reaches the allocation grace start time 413. At this time, the case 406 is the case with the highest service request level, so that it is possible to have the salesperson C with the highest ability score. Further, the case 407 does not reach the allocation grace start time at this time.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Amjadi / Uesugi / Lahav matching support system / matching support method for supporting matching between a client and a provider of a service in a case where the client requests the provider of the service to provide the service with the aforementioned teachings of: a client evaluation registration section that receives and stores, from the provider, an evaluation of the client from whom a request is received in the past; a desired client level registration section that receives and stores, from the provider, a desired client level that is a threshold value of evaluation used to determine a desired client; wherein the recommendation section does not present, to the client, a provider that does not meet the desired client level in the evaluation of the client, among the candidates of the providers based on the third extraction result, and in further view of Uesugi, whereby the allocation calculation function 601 extracts the “sales staff ID” with the “status” unallocated in the service provider management table 900, and extracts the ability score (described below) of the particular “sales staff ID” from the service provider management table 900. Then, the allocation calculation function 601 extracts the “compatibility point” by substituting the information of the “customer ID” and the “sales staff ID” into a compatibility table 802. Then, the allocation calculation function 601 adds the ability score and the “compatibility point” to obtain the total score of the “sales staff ID”. Note that, for example, if the “case type” of the case is a medical insurance proposal, the ability score corresponds to the value of the “medical insurance knowledge level” of the service provider management table (see at least Uesugi: ¶ [0043].). Moreover, Uesugi provides a section that controls the allocation to cases including the target case, according to the state relating to allocation of the other cases while reflecting the compatibility between the other service providers and the user in the particular grace period (see at least Uesugi: (Claim 1 of Uesugi)).
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field for supporting matching between a client and a provider of a service in a case where the client requests the provider of the service to provide the service, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Uesugi, the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DERICK HOLZMACHER whose telephone number is (571) 270-7853. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00 AM – 6:30 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Epstein can be reached on 571-270-5389. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-8853.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/DERICK J HOLZMACHER/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3625A /BRIAN M EPSTEIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights