DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-7 are pending and examined herein per Applicant’s 09/23/2024.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 420a, 420b, and 420c of figure 4, note “420” is mentioned in Specification [25]. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is to a computer storage medium. Where the specification provides support for the claimed element in “Computer storage media includes, but is not limited to, RAM, ROM, EEPROM, flash memory or other memory technology, CD-ROM, digital versatile disks (DVD) or other optical storage, magnetic cassettes, magnetic tape, magnetic disk storage or other magnetic storage devices, or any other medium which can be used to store the desired information and which can be accessed by device”. (Instant Spec [14] emphasis added) The Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media memorandum (01/26/2010) states “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium . . . typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signal per se . . . particularly when the specification is silent”, Also see MPEP 2106.03(I). It is suggested that Applicant add “non-transitory” to the claimed limitation to overcome the rejection.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (i.e. certain methods of organizing human activity AND mental processes) without practical application or significantly more when the elements are considered individually and as an ordered combination.
Step 1: Is the claimed invention to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
No, the claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject, see rejection given above at 5.
Step 2A, prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law or nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claims are found to recite an abstract idea. Specifically, the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity AND mental processes. Where certain methods of organizing human activity include fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II). Where mental processes relates to concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
Claim 1 (as a representative claim) recites the following, where the limitations found to contain elements of the abstract idea are in bold italics:
1. At least one computer-readable medium on which are stored instructions that, when executed by one or more processing devices, enable the one or more processing devices to perform a method, the method comprising the steps of:
receiving from a user via an electronic device a request for a good or a service;
receiving via the electronic device the geographic location of the user;
identifying a type of the requested good or service based on an electronically determined keyword in the request; and
determining an optimal provider of the good or service based on the type of good or service and the geographic location of the user.
The claims are directed towards finding a provider to a requestor, where the instant specification provides “invention provides a method of assigning service professionals and delivering goods to customers” (Spec [20]) and “data collected on clients requesting services, pros delivering services” (Spec [22]). When read in light of the Specification the claims are clearly are for connecting people in need to people that can help them. The claims are found to managing relationships or interactions between people as such they are directed to an abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity.
Further as claimed the steps of the process could be carried out within the mind of a human given the known information. Where a person using the mind’s ability to reason could “identifying a type of the requested good or service based on an electronically determined keyword in the request”. The human mind has the ability to make judgments and form opinions; thus could “determining an optimal provider of the good or service based on the type of good or service and the geographic location of the user”. Therefore the claims are found to be directed to the abstract idea of mental processes. It is noted that MPEP provides that courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. In the claims, the hardware recited is viewed a tool rather than an improvement to the process.
Step 2A, prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the claimed invention does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Where a practical application is described as integrating the abstract idea by applying it, relying on it, or using the abstract idea in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on it such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize it, see October 2019: Subject Matter Eligibility at p. 11.
The identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recites the additional limitations see non-bold-italicized elements above. The receiving elements are determined to be steps of data gather, insignificant extra-solution activity.
Where 2106.05(g) MPEP states, “term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent.”
The Office finds that merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception; or only generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea?
No, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and as part of the ordered combination. The claims also recite a medium which is common and generic hardware component.
Where 2106.05(d)(I)(2) of the MPEP states, “A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018). However, this does not mean that a prior art search is necessary to resolve this inquiry. Instead, examiners should rely on what the courts have recognized, or those in the art would recognize, as elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the relevant field when making the required determination. For example, in many instances, the specification of the application may indicate that additional elements are well-known or conventional. See, e.g., Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1317; 120 USPQ2d at 1359 ("The written description is particularly useful in determining what is well-known or conventional"); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (relying on specification’s description of additional elements as "well-known", "common" and "conventional"); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Specification described additional elements as "either performing basic computer functions such as sending and receiving data, or performing functions ‘known’ in the art.").”
These limitations do NOT offer an improvement to another technology or technical field; improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, or add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application; or other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Therefore, these additional limitations when considered individually or in combination do not provide an inventive concept that can transform the abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter.
The other independent claims recite similar limitations and are rejected for the same reasoning given above.
The dependent claims do not further limit the claimed invention in such a way as to direct the claimed invention to statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davies et al. (US 9,940,654 B1) in view of Goad et al (US 2011/0137745 A1).
Claim 1
Davies teaches at least one computer-readable medium on which are stored instructions that, when executed by one or more processing devices, enable the one or more processing devices to perform a method (Davies 5:41-47), the method comprising the steps of:
receiving from a user via an electronic device a request for a good or a service (Davies 1:64-67);
receiving via the electronic device the geographic location of the user (Davies 2:14-16);
determining an optimal provider of the good or service based on the type of good or service and the geographic location of the user (Davies 2:14-31).
Davies further teaches preferences (2:33-43) but does not expressly teach the claimed limitation of identifying a type of the requested good or service based on an electronically determined keyword in the request.
Goad teaches the claimed limitation of identifying a type of the requested good or service based on an electronically determined keyword in the request (Goad [129])
Both Davies and Goad are concerned with matching requestors and providers of a service. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Davies the identifying a type of the requested good or service based on an electronically determined keyword in the request as taught by Goad since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, 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 the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 2
Davies in view of Goad teach all the limitations of the medium of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises determining an optimal provider of the good or service based on a geographic location of the optimal provider (Davies 2:14-31).
Claim 3
Davies in view of Goad teach all the limitations of the medium of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises determining an optimal provider of the good or service based on a geographic location of an area in which the optimal provider is willing to provide the good or service (Davies 2:14-25, see geo-fence).
Claim 4
Davies in view of Goad teach all the limitations of the medium of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises determining an optimal provider of the good or service based on one of a location and cost of supplies required to fulfill the request (Davis 11:55-58, were fuel is a supply cost in this context).
Claim 5
Davies in view of Goad teach all the limitations of the medium of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises determining an optimal provider of the good or service based on an estimated drive time required for optimal provider to fulfill the request (Davies 7:55-64).
Claim 6
Davies in view of Goad teach all the limitations of the medium of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises determining an optimal provider of the good or service based on projected traffic patterns proximal to a location of the optimal service provider (Davies 8:2-7).
Claim 7
Davies in view of Goad teach all the limitations of the medium of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises determining an optimal provider of the good or service based on a rating of the optimal service provider (Davies 7:23-25 and 12:9-11).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yamashita et al (US 2018/0091604 A1) teaches optimal service provider to fulfill or complete a given service request, the network computer system can identify a plurality of candidate service providers to fulfill or complete the service request based on a service location indicated in the service request.
Wu et al (US 2019/0212157 A1) teaches network service determines the multi-leg route based on multiple parameters from the map data and service request, including the service location, destination, any desired number of legs, traffic conditions, supply and demand for service in the region, estimated costs, etc.
Martin et al (US 2002/0116282 A1) teaches methods and systems for correlating user needs with providers' goods and services, such as offered by utility and telecommunications providers. In accordance with one embodiment of the present invention, a distributed information system provides users, service providers, and distributors with sufficient information to enable them to make informed decisions before entering into contractual relationships.
Streich (US 2015/0006322 A1) teaches system provides the geospatially matched consumers and vendors with information on how to contact one another, but is kept simple by leaving actual contact between the matched parties to separate outside communication channels independent of the system. Processing requirements are reduced by pre-calculating an inner rectangle for complex polygon geographical areas so that simple point-rectangle calculations can confirm locations within the area as being within the polygon.
Tang et al (US 2022/0374488 A1) teaches multiple geographic grids are generated according to acquired location information of a service provider. Each geographic grid contains one or more service providers. The second region matching the target location information is a geographic grid for a region defined by the target location information. A presentation request for a search page is received. The presentation request includes target location information. A keyword is acquired that has a search popularity meeting a first condition in a first region matching the target location information, and the acquired keyword is used as a first keyword.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FOLASHADE ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-3331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 12:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M. CST.
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, Rutao Wu can be reached at (571) 272-6045. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/FOLASHADE ANDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623