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 . The following FINAL office action is in response to Applicant communication filed on 07/09/2026 regarding application 18/867,211. Claims 1, 7-10 and 14-15 have been amended. Claims 4-6 and 11-13 have been canceled. Claims 1-3, 7-10 and 14-15 are pending and have been rejected.
Response to Amendments
2. Applicant’s amendment filed on 07/09/2026 necessitated new grounds of rejection in this office action.
Foreign Priority
3. The Examiner has noted the Applicants claiming Foreign Priority from Foreign Application JP2022-085045 filed on 05/25/2022 and 371 of PCT/JP2023/004317 filed on 02/09/2023. 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 earliest effective filing date of this application examined on the record is 05/25/2022.
Status of Claims
4. Applicant’s arguments, see page 11 filed on 07/09/2026, with respect to the Specification Disclosure Objection to Title have been fully considered, and are found to be persuasive. Therefore, the Specification Disclosure Objection to Title is withdrawn. Examiner annotated and attached OK to enter with Examiner’s initials and date for OC case submission.
5. Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-12 filed on 07/09/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 112 (f) Claim Interpretation for Claims 1, 4-6 and 8-9 have been fully considered, and are found to be persuasive. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. § 112 (f) Claim Interpretation for Claims 1, 4-6 and 8-9 are withdrawn.
6. Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-12 filed on 07/09/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 112 (a) Claim Rejections for Claims 1, 4-6 and 8-9 have been fully considered, and are found to be persuasive. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. § 112 (a) Claim Rejections for Claims 1, 4-6 and 8-9 are withdrawn.
7. Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-12 filed on 07/09/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 112 (b) Claim Rejections for Claims 1-6 and 8-9 have been fully considered, and are found to be partially persuasive. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. § 112 (b) Claim Rejections for Claims 4-6 and 8-9 are withdrawn. Examiner Note: The 35 U.S.C. § 112 (b) Claim Rejections for Claims 2-3 are maintained due to still an existing lack of antecedent basis regarding the phrase “the number of cases” in Dependent Claims 2-3 which has still not been addressed. Additionally, due to the proposed claim amendments by Applicant in the preamble of Independent Claim 10, this raises a new lack of antecedent basis rejection for Claims 10 and 14-15 with respect to “the client” recited in the preamble of Independent Claim 10. See the 35 U.S.C. § 112 (b) Claim Rejections Section shown below.
8. Applicant’s arguments, see pages 16-20 filed on 07/09/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 Claim Rejections for Claims 1-4, 8, 10-11 and 14 have been fully considered, and are found to be persuasive. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. § 103 Claim Rejections for Claims 1-3, 7-10 and 14-15 are withdrawn. See Examining Claims with Respect to Prior Art Section shown below.
Response to 35 U.S.C. § 101 Arguments
9. Applicant’s 35 U.S.C. § 101 arguments, filed with respect to Claims 1-3, 7-10 and 14-15 have been fully considered, but they are found not persuasive (see Applicant Remarks, Pages 12-16 of 20 dated 07/09/2026). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Argument #1:
(A). Applicant argues that Claims 1-3, 7-10 and 14-15 do not recite an abstract idea, law of nature of natural phenomenon under revised step 2a prong one of the 35 U.S.C § 101 analysis (see Applicant Remarks, Page 12-15, dated 07/09/2026). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Specifically, Applicant argues that independent claims 1 and 10 are directed to patent-eligible subject matter because the claims allegedly improve automatic client and service-provider matching by considering not only the viewpoint of the client but also the viewpoint of the service provider. Applicant further argues that the claimed process constitutes a technical solution to a technical problem and that the claimed limitations cannot practically be performed by the human mind (see Applicant Remarks, Page 14 of 20, dated 07/09/2026). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As set forth in the Office Action, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of matching a client requesting a service with one or more service providers by evaluating characteristics of the client's request and characteristics of the providers and selecting providers based on those characteristics.
In response to Applicant’s remarks here for step 2a prong 1, Examiner notes that Independent Claims 1 and 10 expressly recites a “matching support system” for “matching between a client and a provider of a service” where the client requests the provider to provide the service. The claims further requires storing information concerning providers, including reliability, expertise, and available work time; storing information concerning the client's request; determining a difficulty level for the request and for elements of the request; calculating workload; generating successive extraction results; selecting a combination of providers capable of handling the workload; and transmitting and displaying the resulting provider candidates to the client.
These limitations describe the organization of a commercial/service relationship between a client and service providers. Accordingly, the claimed activity falls within the abstract-idea grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity, particularly commercial interactions and business relations.
These claims also recite evaluation and judgment operations, including determining request difficulty, evaluating provider reliability and expertise, calculating or assessing workload, and selecting providers based on those characteristics. To the extent these operations can practically be performed in the human mind, they additionally support the mental-process grouping.
Applicant's argument that the entire claimed sequence cannot be performed by a human does not remove the claims from the abstract-idea analysis. The mental-process characterization concerns the substantive evaluation and judgment operations, and the claims independently falls within the commercial-interaction/business-relations grouping because its ultimate purpose is to organize the relationship between a client seeking a service and providers selected to provide that service.
Further, the Federal Circuit has held that computer implementation of a matching process does not necessarily change its abstract character. See, e.g., Trinity Info Media LLC v. Covalent, Inc., 72 F.4th 1355, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2023), where the court held claims directed to matching users based on questioning to be abstract despite implementation on a handheld device and despite arguments concerning the computational scale and speed of the claimed process.
Accordingly, the claimed processor, storage device, client terminal, display, transmission, and user interface do not change the fundamental character of the claimed advance, which remains the matching and selection of service providers based on characteristics of the client request and the providers.
Examiner refers Applicant to MPEP § 2106.04 (a) (2) II which states that: “the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person and activity that involves multiple people, and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer may fall within the "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities" groupings. It is noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings.”
Also, with respect to “Mental Processes” category, Examiner refers Applicant to MPEP § 2106.04 (a) (2) (III) (B): “If a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674 (noting that the claimed "conversion of [binary-coded decimal] numerals to pure binary numerals can be done mentally," i.e., "as a person would do it by head and hand."); Synopsys, 839 F.3d at 1139, 120 USPQ2d at 1474 (holding that claims to the mental process of "translating a functional description of a logic circuit into a hardware component description of the logic circuit" are directed to an abstract idea, because the claims "read on an individual performing the claimed steps mentally or with pencil and paper"). The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step (e.g., a mathematical calculation) does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another.”
Moreover, with respect to “Mental Processes” category, Examiner refers Applicant to MPEP § 2106.04 (a) (2) (III) (C): “Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea. The Court concluded that the algorithm could be performed purely mentally even though the claimed procedures "can be carried out in existing computers long in use, no new machinery being necessary." 409 U.S at 67, 175 USPQ at 675. See also Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699 (concluding that concept of "anonymous loan shopping" recited in a computer system claims are an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer").” “For instance, the Examiner has reviewed Applicant’s Specification and determined that the claimed invention is described as concepts that are performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer (see Applicant’s Specification ¶ [0124]: “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.”), or 2) in a computer environment (see Applicant’s Specification ¶ [0051] and Fig. 16: “The agency request support device 100, the client terminal 200, and the agent terminal 300 are each configured using one or more information processing apparatuses (computers), and are connected in a state where two-way communication is possible via a communication network 5. The communication network 5 is a wired or wireless communication network, and includes, for example, a local area network (LAN), a wide area network (WAN), the Internet, various public wireless communication networks, a dedicated line, and the like.”), or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform these concepts.” Thus, based on these 3 factors, Examiner maintains that the claims still recite a mental process.
In conclusion, therefore, at step 2a prong 1, Claims 1-3, 7-10 and 14-15 are directed to the abstract idea and recited judicial exceptions under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” category or “Mental Processes” category or “Mathematical Concepts” category. Claims 1-3, 7-10 and 14-15 are maintained as being patient ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 step 2a prong 1.
Argument #2:
(B). Applicant argues that the claimed invention improves the field of automatic client and service-provider matching by considering the viewpoint of the service provider (see Applicant Remarks, Page 12-15, dated 07/09/2026). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Examiner does not dispute that the claimed process may provide an improved or more desirable business result relative to the prior art. However, the relevant improvement inquiry under Step 2A, Prong Two concerns an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field, not merely an improvement to an underlying business process (emphasis added). MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) require consideration of whether the claims reflects an improvement to computer functionality or another technology or technical field. The MPEP further explains that merely improving a business process does not establish an improvement to computer or technological functionality. Here, Applicant identifies the asserted improvement as better matching of clients and service providers by taking provider-side considerations into account. The asserted improvement therefore concerns the matching decision itself, rather than an improvement to the computer technology used to perform that decision. Applicant has not identified, and the claims does not recite, an improvement to processor operation, memory operation, database architecture, network communication, data transmission, user-interface technology, or another technological field.
The claimed operations of determining request difficulty, calculating workload, generating extraction results, evaluating provider reliability and expertise, and selecting provider combinations are rules and criteria for determining which service providers should be matched to the client. They do not specify a technological mechanism that improves the operation of the computer performing those operations.
Argument #3:
(C). Applicant argues that the invention provides a “technical solution to a technical problem” because conventional systems allegedly failed to consider the service provider's viewpoint (see Applicant Remarks, Page 12-15, dated 07/09/2026). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
This argument is not persuasive because the identified problem is not a problem in computer technology. Rather, the asserted deficiency is that prior matching systems did not adequately account for provider-side factors when making a service-provider selection. The claims addresses that problem by considering provider reliability, provider expertise, provider availability, request difficulty, and workload capacity when selecting candidates. These are characteristics and decision criteria relating to the service-provider matching activity itself. The claims therefore solves a business/service-allocation problem using information processing, rather than a technological problem through an improvement in computer technology. The fact that the claimed process is implemented by a computer does not transform the underlying business activity into a technological improvement.
Moreover, Applicant's identification of differences between the claimed invention and the cited prior art does not establish eligibility under § 101. A claimed process may be new or non-obvious while still being directed to an abstract idea. The § 101 inquiry concerns the character of the claimed advance, not merely whether the claimed process differs from the prior art.
Indeed, Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., 134 F.4th 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2025), confirms that applying existing computer or machine-learning technology to a new business environment does not itself make the resulting process patent eligible. The Federal Circuit further rejected increased speed and efficiency resulting from computer implementation as sufficient where the claims did not improve the underlying computer technology.
Here, the claimed advance is likewise an improved approach to the business activity of matching clients with service providers, rather than an improvement to the computer technology used to perform that activity.
Argument #4:
(D). Applicant argues that the claims are analogous to the Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc., 879 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2018) court case (see Applicant Remarks, Page 15 of 20, dated 07/09/2026). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant's reliance on Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc., 879 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2018), is misplaced. In Finjan, the claimed security-profile technique constituted an improvement to computer-security technology itself because the claimed approach enabled the computer security system to perform behavior-based analysis in a manner that improved the technological operation of virus scanning. In contrast, the present claims do not recite an analogous technological mechanism that improves the operation of a computer or another technology. Instead, the claimed additional processing rules improve the selection of service providers based on business characteristics. Thus, unlike Finjan, the claimed advance is not an improvement to the technology performing the matching; it is an improvement to the result of the matching activity.
Argument #5:
(E). Applicant argues that Claims 1-3, 7-10 and 14-15 recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under revised step 2a prong two of the 35 U.S.C. § 101 analysis (see Applicant Remarks, Pages 15-16, dated 07/09/2026). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner points out for 35 U.S.C. § 101 step 2a prong 2, that the additional elements of these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The processor, storage device, client terminal, display, transmission, and user interface are generic technological components performing their ordinary functions of storing, processing, communicating, receiving, and displaying information. The storage of provider information, request information, provider reliability, provider expertise, and provider schedules merely supplies information used by the matching process. The determination of request difficulty, calculation of workload, generation of successive extraction results, and selection of provider combinations implement the underlying abstract matching activity. These operations do not recite an improvement to computer functionality or another technological field. The transmission and display of provider candidates likewise merely communicate and present the result of the matching process. Accordingly, the claim uses computer technology as a tool for performing the abstract commercial matching activity. The claim does not meaningfully limit the judicial exception through an improvement to computer technology, a particular machine integral to the claimed process, a transformation, or another meaningful technological application. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two.
Argument #6:
(F). Applicant argues that Claims 1-3, 7-10 and 14-15 recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions under revised step 2B of the 35 U.S.C. § 101 analysis (see Applicant Remarks, Pages 15-16, dated 07/09/2026). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response, Examiner refers Applicant to Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. 101 analysis section (e.g., Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 101 section shown below) shown for step 2B particularly for Independent Claims 1 and 10. The claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions, because they are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exceptions. The limitations are directed to limitations referenced in MPEP § 2106.05I.A. that are not enough to qualify as significantly more when recited in these claims with the abstract idea which include: (1) adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, (2) or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer and providing the results to the user on a computer, and (3) generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
The additional elements, considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The processor, storage device, client terminal, display, transmission functions, and user interface are generic computer components performing their ordinary functions. The claimed storage and processing operations likewise constitute conventional information-processing operations. The successive extraction results and provider-combination selection do not recite an unconventional technological architecture. Rather, they represent successive stages of filtering and selecting providers according to the characteristics of the request and the providers. Although the ordered combination may provide a more desirable provider-matching result, the claimed combination does not add an inventive technological solution to a technological problem. Instead, it implements the abstract commercial activity of evaluating a client's service request and selecting suitable service providers using generic computer components. The fact that the computer implementation may perform the claimed matching process more rapidly, consistently, or on a larger scale than a human does not supply an inventive concept where the underlying computer technology itself is not improved. See Recentive Analytics, 134 F.4th 1207. Accordingly, the additional elements, individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Applicant has identified an asserted improvement in service-provider matching, but has not demonstrated that the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or another technology or technical field. Applicant has not identified a technological improvement. Applicant has identified an improvement in the business decision produced by the computer—namely, matching clients and providers while accounting for provider-side reliability, expertise, availability, and workload. The claims do not recite a technological mechanism that improves the operation of the computer performing that matching.
The claimed difficulty, workload, reliability, expertise, availability, extraction, and provider-selection operations instead constitute the substantive rules for performing the abstract commercial matching activity. Therefore, the claims remain directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two, and the additional elements do not amount to significantly more under Step 2B. Accordingly, the rejection of Claims 1-3, 7-10 and 14-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
10. 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.
11. Claims 2-3, 10 and 14-15 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.
(A). 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. 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.”
(B). 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. 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.”
(C). The preamble of Independent Claim 10 recites the following: “A matching support method of supporting matching between a client terminal and a provider of a service in a case where the client requests the provider of the service to provide the service, wherein an information processing apparatus having a processor and a storage device executes steps comprising.” Examiner notes that there is a lack of antecedent basis with respect to “the client” in the phrase “the client requests” since Applicant amended the previous instance to “a client terminal” which is not the same as “the client”. A terminal is a computer or computing device whereas a client is a person or user. Therefore, this consequently raises a lack of 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) antecedent basis rejection.
For the purposes of examination, Examiner suggests to Applicant to amend the preamble of Independent Claim 10 to recite the following: “A matching support method of supporting matching between a client terminal and a provider of a service in a case where [[ a client requests the provider of the service to provide the service, wherein an information processing apparatus having a processor and a storage device executes steps comprising.”
Furthermore, Dependent Claims 14-15 depend from Independent Claim 10 and therefore inherit the 35 U.S.C § 112 (b) deficiencies of Independent Claim 10 discussed above.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
12. 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.
13. Claims 1-3, 7-10 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-3, 7-10 and 14-15 are each focused to a statutory category namely a “system” or an “apparatus” (Claims 1-3 and 7-9) and a “method” or a “process” (Claims 10 and 14-15).
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);
“” (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);
“determine a difficulty level of the request based on the request information” (see Independent Claim 1);
“extract 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 generate a first extraction result describing extracted results” (see Independent Claim 1);
“extract 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 generate a second extraction result describing extract results” (see Independent Claim 1);
“store a schedule of available work time of each of the providers” (see Independent Claims 1 and 10);
“determine a difficulty level for each element of the request” (see Independent Claims 1 and 10);
“calculate a workload for each difficulty level of the request” (see Independent Claims 1 and 10);
“generate the first extraction result for each difficulty level” (see Independent Claims 1 and 10);
“generate the second extraction result for each difficulty level” (see Independent Claims 1 and 10);
“extract 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 generate a third extraction result describing the extracted combination, and transmit, , the candidates of the providers based on the third extraction result” (see Independent Claims 1 and 10);
“receives and displays the candidates of the providers based on the third extraction result ” (see Independent Claims 1 and 10);
“ supporting matching between 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);
“storing basic information that is information about each of a plurality of the providers” (see Independent Claim 10);
“storing request information that is information about a request received from the client” (see Independent Claim 10);
“storing reliability that is information indicating a degree of reliability of each of the plurality of providers” (see Independent Claim 10);
“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 data analysis and matching (specifically, evaluating a request and selecting service providers based on criteria like reliability, expertise, and workload). 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.
Examiner summarizes the following: Storing and organizing information (provider info, request info, reliability, expertise, schedules): This falls under data accumulation and management, which is a mental process and a method of organizing human activity. Collecting and storing information is a mental process or generic data gathering. Humans do this by writing notes or filing folders. Determining difficulty levels and calculating workloads: This represents mathematical calculations and determinations that can be performed entirely by the human mind or with pen and paper. Assessing difficulty is a pure mental judgment or evaluation that a person can do by reading a request.
Extracting/generating extraction results (first, second, third): This constitutes rules for matching, sorting, and filtering data, corresponding to generic business practices of evaluating qualifications and availability. Filtering and matching lists of people based on criteria (like skill or trust) is a mental sorting process. Scheduling and assigning tasks based on availability and skill is a fundamental business practice (dispatching/matching) that humans have done manually for centuries. Transmitting and displaying on a client terminal: This uses communication of information without altering how the computer works technically.
In summary, 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) and additionally or alternatively cover performance of their limitations as “Mathematical Concepts” which pertains to (3) mathematical calculations.
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 (4) concepts performed in the human mind (including observations or evaluations or judgments) or (5) 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” & “user interface” & “client terminal” & “display” & “processor” & “storage device”), 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 and additionally or alternatively as “Mathematical Concepts” which pertains to (5) mathematical calculations.
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” or “Mathematical Concepts” Groupings.
Therefore, at step 2a prong 1, Yes, Claims 1-3, 7-10 and 14-15 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 Claims 1 recites additional elements directed to: (e.g., “matching support system” & “user interface” & “information processing apparatus” & “display” & “client terminal” & “processor” & “storage device”). Independent Claim 10 recites additional elements directed to: (e.g., “information processing apparatus” & “user interface” & “display” & “client terminal” & “processor” & “storage device”). 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 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 summary, the operations do not improve computer functionality or provide a specific, technical solution to a technical problem. They merely automate a traditional business/administrative dispatch or matching workflow using generic computer hardware as a tool.
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 1-3, 7-10 and 14-15 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. Independent Claim 1 recites additional elements directed to: (e.g., “matching support system” & “user interface” & “information processing apparatus” & “display” & “client terminal” & “processor” & “storage device”). Independent Claim 10 recites additional elements directed to: (e.g., “information processing apparatus” & “user interface” & “display” & “client terminal” & “processor” & “storage device”). 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 the providers” (see Independent Claims 1 and 10) & “storing request information that is information about a request received from the client” (see Independent Claims 1 and 10) & “storing reliability that is information indicating a degree of reliability of each of the plurality of providers” (see Independent Claims 1 and 10) & “storing information that indicates expertise of each of the providers for the service” (see Independent Claims 1 and 10) & “store a schedule of available work time of each of the providers” (see Independent Claims 1 and 10)) and “receiving and/or transmitting data” (e.g., “transmit, to the client terminal, the candidates of the providers based on the third extraction result” (see Independent Claims 1 and 10) & “wherein the client terminal executes steps of receiving and displaying the candidates of the providers based on the third extraction result on the display via a user interface” (see Independent Claims 1 and 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. 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 USPQ2d1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
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. Looking at the additional elements (calculating workload per difficulty level, multiple filtering/extraction steps based on reliability and expertise, scheduling), these represent business/allocation logic arranged in a sequence. There is no technical solution to a technical problem; it is purely a data-processing and administrative method.
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 2-3, 7-9 and 14-15 recite additional elements directed to: (e.g., “client terminal” (see Dependent Claims 8 and 14-15), 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 and additionally or alternatively as “Mathematical Concepts” which pertains to (5) mathematical calculations.
Dependent Claims 2-3, 7-9 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. These additional elements previously mentioned when considered individually and as an ordered combination (as a whole) in view of these claim limitations do 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 restrict 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.
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 1-3, 7-10 and 14-15 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions. Thus, Claims 1-3, 7-10 and 14-15 are ineligible with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 101 analysis.
Examining Claims with Respect to Prior Art
14. Independent Claims 1 and 10 have overcome the prior art rejection only (see Applicant’s Remarks, Pages 16-20 filed on 07/09/2026), have been fully considered and are found to be persuasive. Therefore Claims 1-3, 7-10 and 14-15 are withdrawn over the 35 U.S.C. § 103 prior art rejections. However, Claims 1-3, 7-10 and 14-15 remain still rejected over 35 U.S.C. § 101 and Claims 2-3, 10 and 14-15 remain still rejected over 35 U.S.C. § 112 (b).
For Independent Claims 1 and 10, there is no disclosure in the existing prior art or any new art that either teaches and/or discloses the sequence operation of each of these features either individually or in combination relating to:
“extract 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 generate a first extraction result describing extracted results” (see Independent Claims 1 and 10);
“extract 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 generate a second extraction result describing extract results” (see Independent Claims 1 and 10);
“store a schedule of available work time of each of the providers” (see Independent Claims 1 and 10);
“determine a difficulty level for each element of the request” (see Independent Claims 1 and 10);
“calculate a workload for each difficulty level of the request” (see Independent Claims 1 and 10);
“generate the first extraction result for each difficulty level” (see Independent Claims 1 and 10);
“generate the second extraction result for each difficulty level” (see Independent Claims 1 and 10);
“extract 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 generate a third extraction result describing the extracted combination, and transmit, to the client terminal, the candidates of the providers based on the third extraction result” (see Independent Claims 1 and 10);
“wherein the client terminal receives and displays the candidates of the providers based on the third extraction result on the display via a user interface” (see Independent Claims 1 and 10).
The closest prior arts are as follows:
#1) US PG Pub (US 2015/0278903 A1) – “Computer program, method, and system for matching consumers with service providers”, hereinafter Amjadi.
#2) US PG Pub (US 2014/0350981 A1) – “Service Provider Application System and Allocation Management Device”, hereinafter Uesugi, et. al.
#3) US PG Pub (US 2021/0216979 A1) – “Identifying, Soliciting, Selecting and Scheduling Service Providers”, hereinafter Anderson, et. al.
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Amjadi matching support system teaches or suggests the sequence of operations comprising 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).)
However, Amjadi, et. al. specifically, does not teach or suggest the sequence of operations comprising:
“extract 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 generate a first extraction result describing extracted results” (see Independent Claims 1 and 10);
“extract 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 generate a second extraction result describing extract results” (see Independent Claims 1 and 10);
“store a schedule of available work time of each of the providers” (see Independent Claims 1 and 10);
“determine a difficulty level for each element of the request” (see Independent Claims 1 and 10);
“calculate a workload for each difficulty level of the request” (see Independent Claims 1 and 10);
“generate the first extraction result for each difficulty level” (see Independent Claims 1 and 10);
“generate the second extraction result for each difficulty level” (see Independent Claims 1 and 10);
“extract 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 generate a third extraction result describing the extracted combination, and transmit, to the client terminal, the candidates of the providers based on the third extraction result” (see Independent Claims 1 and 10);
“wherein the client terminal receives and displays the candidates of the providers based on the third extraction result on the display via a user interface” (see Independent Claims 1 and 10).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Uesugi matching support system teaches or suggests the sequence of operations comprising the following:
- determine 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.)
- extract 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].);
- extract 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.).
However, Uesugi, et. al. specifically, does not teach or suggest the sequence of operations comprising:
“extract 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 generate a first extraction result describing extracted results” (see Independent Claims 1 and 10);
“extract 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 generate a second extraction result describing extract results” (see Independent Claims 1 and 10);
“store a schedule of available work time of each of the providers” (see Independent Claims 1 and 10);
“determine a difficulty level for each element of the request” (see Independent Claims 1 and 10);
“calculate a workload for each difficulty level of the request” (see Independent Claims 1 and 10);
“generate the first extraction result for each difficulty level” (see Independent Claims 1 and 10);
“generate the second extraction result for each difficulty level” (see Independent Claims 1 and 10);
“extract 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 generate a third extraction result describing the extracted combination, and transmit, to the client terminal, the candidates of the providers based on the third extraction result” (see Independent Claims 1 and 10);
“wherein the client terminal receives and displays the candidates of the providers based on the third extraction result on the display via a user interface” (see Independent Claims 1 and 10).
Regarding the Anderson reference, Anderson matching support system teaches or suggests the sequence of operations comprising the following:
Anderson at ¶ [0044] teaches or suggests using natural language processing to extract keywords and phrases and other attributes that can be used for matching service providers to a service request. Additionally, these keywords and phrases may be used at least in part to rank service providers for suitability for a service request. Anderson teaches at ¶ [0084] that the average consumer rating service provider has received from consumers who used their services previously on the System Service Request Match Score: Similarity between service provider's skill profile and service request, calculated by using Natural Language Processing (NLP) to extract keywords/key phrases from service requests, and comparing them to keywords/key phrases in service provider's skill profile and/or with service requests the service provider has won previously. Anderson at ¶ [0096] teaches that step 135 calculates a service request match score for one or more potentially matching service providers.
However, Anderson, et. al. specifically, does not teach or suggest the sequence of operations comprising:
“extract 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 generate a first extraction result describing extracted results” (see Independent Claims 1 and 10);
“extract 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 generate a second extraction result describing extract results” (see Independent Claims 1 and 10);
“store a schedule of available work time of each of the providers” (see Independent Claims 1 and 10);
“determine a difficulty level for each element of the request” (see Independent Claims 1 and 10);
“calculate a workload for each difficulty level of the request” (see Independent Claims 1 and 10);
“generate the first extraction result for each difficulty level” (see Independent Claims 1 and 10);
“generate the second extraction result for each difficulty level” (see Independent Claims 1 and 10);
“extract 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 generate a third extraction result describing the extracted combination, and transmit, to the client terminal, the candidates of the providers based on the third extraction result” (see Independent Claims 1 and 10);
“wherein the client terminal receives and displays the candidates of the providers based on the third extraction result on the display via a user interface” (see Independent Claims 1 and 10).
Therefore, when taken as a whole, the claims are not rendered obvious as the available prior art does not suggest or otherwise render obvious the noted features nor do the available art suggest or otherwise render obvious further modification of the evidence at hand. Such modification would require substantial reconstruction relying solely on improper hindsight bias, and thus would not be obvious.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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