Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 5 appears to repeat the phrase “of the transfer” in the limitation (emphasized) “…configures the one or more processors to record the indications of the transfer of the transfer of the partial ownership or membership interest…” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 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.
Regarding claims 1, 19, and 20, claims 1, 19, and 20 are rejected as indefinite because the claims recite the term “larger entity”. The term “larger entity” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “larger” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. To overcome this rejection, Examiner suggests amending the claims to remove the term “larger” in all the claims that recite “larger entity”.
Accordingly, claims 1, 19, and 20 are rejected under 112(b). Claims 2-18 do not clarify this issue and accordingly are rejected due to their dependencies.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must first be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention. Applying Step 1 to the claims it is determined that: claims 1-18 and 20 are directed to a machine; and claim 19 is directed to a process.
Independent Claim 1
Under Step 2A Prong 1 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories or “buckets” of patent ineligible subject matter that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
The independent claim 1 recites an abstract idea in the limitations (emphasized):
…one or more servers configured to host a payment module, an ownership exchange subsystem, and an application placed in electronic communication with electronic devices by way of a network, wherein a first subset of the electronic devices are associated with hiring entities (“the hiring user devices”) and a second subset of the electronic devices are associated with worker users (“the worker user devices”), said one or more servers comprising executable software instructions, which when executed, configures one or more processors to:
receive data from the worker user devices and establish profiles for the worker users at the application based on the data;
generate, by way of the ownership exchange subsystem, indications of transfer of ownership or membership interest in a larger entity by the worker users;
receive data from the hiring user devices and establish job entries at the application based on the data;
receive indications of acceptance of at least some of the job entries;
receive indications of completion of jobs associated with the accepted job entries;
determine compensation amounts due to the worker users for the completed jobs by way of the payment module;
collect electronic payments from hiring entities for the completed jobs by way of the payment module; and
disburse electronic payments to the worker users by way of the payment module.
These limitations recite an abstract idea because these limitation encompass commercial or legal interactions (i.e., agreements in the form of contracts). That is, these limitations essentially encompass steps in the contracting process (i.e., providing stock as compensation, accepting and completing jobs, and determining, collecting and dispersing payments). Claim 1 recites an abstract idea
Under Step 2A Prong 2 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must be determined whether the identified, recited abstract idea includes additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional elements of the independent claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional elements (emphasized):
…one or more servers configured to host a payment module, an ownership exchange subsystem, and an application placed in electronic communication with electronic devices by way of a network, wherein a first subset of the electronic devices are associated with hiring entities (“the hiring user devices”) and a second subset of the electronic devices are associated with worker users (“the worker user devices”), said one or more servers comprising executable software instructions, which when executed, configures one or more processors to:
receive data from the worker user devices and establish profiles for the worker users at the application based on the data;
generate, by way of the ownership exchange subsystem, indications of transfer of ownership or membership interest in a larger entity by the worker users;
receive data from the hiring user devices and establish job entries at the application based on the data;
receive indications of acceptance of at least some of the job entries;
receive indications of completion of jobs associated with the accepted job entries;
determine compensation amounts due to the worker users for the completed jobs by way of the payment module;
collect electronic payments from hiring entities for the completed jobs by way of the payment module; and
disburse electronic payments to the worker users by way of the payment module.
These limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application for the following reasons. First, the additional elements of the server, the various software components, the electronic devices, the payment modules, and “electronic” payments, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because the additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Second, the additional elements of data receiving data from the worker user devices to establish profiles and job entries, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because the additional elements encompass generic computer functions of storing, displaying and receiving data (i.e. storing relevant data, displaying instructions and receiving user input), see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (noting the use of computers in their ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application). Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B of the patent eligibility analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea (i.e., an innovative concept).
The independent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Independent Claim 19
Under Step 2A Prong 1 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories or “buckets” of patent ineligible subject matter that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
The independent claim 19 recites an abstract idea in the limitations (emphasized):
…receiving, at one or more servers, data from a first subset of the electronic devices, each associated with a worker user (“worker user devices”) and establishing profiles for the worker users at an application hosted at the one or more servers based on the data;
transferring, by way of an ownership exchange subsystem hosted at the one or more servers, indications of ownership or membership interest in a larger entity by and to the worker users;
receiving, at the one or more servers, data from a second subset of the electronic devices are associated with hiring entities (“hiring user devices”) and establishing job entries at the application based on the data;
receiving, at the one or more servers, indications of acceptances of at least some of the job entries;
receiving, at the one or more servers, indications of completion of jobs associated with the accepted job entries;
determining, at a payment module hosted at the one or more servers, compensation amounts due to the worker users for the completed jobs;
collecting, by way of the payment module, electronic payments from hiring entities for the completed jobs by way of the payment module; and
disbursing electronic payments to the worker users by way of the payment module.
These limitations recite an abstract idea because these limitation encompass commercial or legal interactions (i.e., agreements in the form of contracts). That is, these limitations essentially encompass steps in the contracting process (i.e., providing stock as compensation, accepting and completing jobs, and determining, collecting and dispersing payments). Claim 19 recites an abstract idea
Under Step 2A Prong 2 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must be determined whether the identified, recited abstract idea includes additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional elements of the independent claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 19 recites the additional elements (emphasized):
…receiving, at one or more servers, data from a first subset of the electronic devices, each associated with a worker user (“worker user devices”) and establishing profiles for the worker users at an application hosted at the one or more servers based on the data;
transferring, by way of an ownership exchange subsystem hosted at the one or more servers, indications of ownership or membership interest in a larger entity by and to the worker users;
receiving, at the one or more servers, data from a second subset of the electronic devices are associated with hiring entities (“hiring user devices”) and establishing job entries at the application based on the data;
receiving, at the one or more servers, indications of acceptances of at least some of the job entries;
receiving, at the one or more servers, indications of completion of jobs associated with the accepted job entries;
determining, at a payment module hosted at the one or more servers, compensation amounts due to the worker users for the completed jobs;
collecting, by way of the payment module, electronic payments from hiring entities for the completed jobs by way of the payment module; and
disbursing electronic payments to the worker users by way of the payment module.
These limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application for the following reasons. First, the additional elements of the server, the various software components, the electronic devices, the payment module, and “electronic” payments, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because the additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Second, the additional elements of data receiving data from the worker user devices to establish profiles and job entries, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because the additional elements encompass generic computer functions of storing, displaying and receiving data (i.e. storing relevant data, displaying instructions and receiving user input), see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (noting the use of computers in their ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application). Claim 19 is directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B of the patent eligibility analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea (i.e., an innovative concept).
The independent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Claim 19 is not patent eligible.
Independent Claim 20
Under Step 2A Prong 1 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories or “buckets” of patent ineligible subject matter that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
The independent claim 20 recites an abstract idea in the limitations (emphasized):
… one or more servers configured to host a payment module, an ownership exchange subsystem, and an application placed in electronic communication with electronic devices by way of a network, wherein a first subset of the electronic devices are each associated with hiring entities (“the hiring user devices”) and a second subset of the electronic devices are associated with worker users (“the worker user devices”), said one or more servers comprising executable software instructions, which when executed by one or more processors configures the one or more processors to:
receive data from the worker user devices and establish profiles for the worker users at the application based on the data;
transfer, by way of the ownership exchange subsystem, indications of ownership or membership interest in a larger entity by and to the worker users, including by generating, and at least partially filling-in, form documents for said transfer and transmitting said documents for electronic execution by, or on behalf of, said larger entity and said worker users;
receive data from the hiring user devices and establish job entries at the application based on the data;
receive indications of acceptances of at least some of the job entries from at least some of the worker user devices;
receive indications of completion of jobs associated with the accepted job entries from at least some of the hiring user devices;
determine compensation amounts due to the worker users for the completed jobs by way of the payment module;
collect electronic payments from hiring entities for the completed jobs by way of the payment module;
determine, by way of the payment module for each of the completed jobs, a benefits or membership fee due;
subtract, from the collected payments, the benefits or membership fee to arrive at payments for disbursement;
disburse the payments electronically to the worker users by way of the payment module;
wherein said one or more servers, including said payment module and said ownership exchange subsystem, are located at one or more orbital systems and/or one or more offshore locations.
These limitations recite an abstract idea because these limitation encompass commercial or legal interactions (i.e., agreements in the form of contracts). That is, these limitations essentially encompass steps in the contracting process (i.e., providing stock as compensation, accepting and completing jobs, and determining, collecting and dispersing payments). Claim 20 recites an abstract idea
Under Step 2A Prong 2 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must be determined whether the identified, recited abstract idea includes additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional elements of the independent claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional elements (emphasized):
… one or more servers configured to host a payment module, an ownership exchange subsystem, and an application placed in electronic communication with electronic devices by way of a network, wherein a first subset of the electronic devices are each associated with hiring entities (“the hiring user devices”) and a second subset of the electronic devices are associated with worker users (“the worker user devices”), said one or more servers comprising executable software instructions, which when executed by one or more processors configures the one or more processors to:
receive data from the worker user devices and establish profiles for the worker users at the application based on the data;
transfer, by way of the ownership exchange subsystem, indications of ownership or membership interest in a larger entity by and to the worker users, including by generating, and at least partially filling-in, form documents for said transfer and transmitting said documents for electronic execution by, or on behalf of, said larger entity and said worker users;
receive data from the hiring user devices and establish job entries at the application based on the data;
receive indications of acceptances of at least some of the job entries from at least some of the worker user devices;
receive indications of completion of jobs associated with the accepted job entries from at least some of the hiring user devices;
determine compensation amounts due to the worker users for the completed jobs by way of the payment module;
collect electronic payments from hiring entities for the completed jobs by way of the payment module;
determine, by way of the payment module for each of the completed jobs, a benefits or membership fee due;
subtract, from the collected payments, the benefits or membership fee to arrive at payments for disbursement;
disburse the payments electronically to the worker users by way of the payment module;
wherein said one or more servers, including said payment module and said ownership exchange subsystem, are located at one or more orbital systems and/or one or more offshore locations.
These limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application for the following reasons. First, the additional elements of the server, the various software components, the electronic devices, the payment module, and “electronic” payments, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because the additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Second, the additional elements of data receiving data from the worker user devices to establish profiles and job entries, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because the additional elements encompass generic computer functions of storing, displaying and receiving data (i.e. storing relevant data, displaying instructions and receiving user input), see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (noting the use of computers in their ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application).
Third, the additional elements of the servers being located at an orbital system or offshore location, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are only a general link to a field of use or technological environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h) (discussing Affinity Labs). That is, although these additional elements do limit the use of the abstract idea, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (ungrounded platforms) and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the claims. Claim 20 is directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B of the patent eligibility analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea (i.e., an innovative concept).
The independent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Claim 20 is not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims
The dependent claims are rejected under 101 as directed to an abstract idea for the following reasons.
Claim 2 recites the same abstract idea as the independent claims because subtracting fees as part of payments is a part of the contracting process.
Claim 3 recites the additional elements of receiving information from the user devices. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because the additional elements encompass generic computer functions of sending and receiving data (i.e., receiving user input from computing devices), see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (noting the use of computers in their ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application).
Claims 4 and 5 recite the same abstract idea as the independent claims because completing forms for transferring stock an d recording the transfer is a part of the contracting process (i.e., providing stock as compensation).
Claim 6 recites the same abstract idea as the independent claims because accepting jobs after receiving indications of ownership is a part of the contracting process (i.e., providing stock as compensation).
Claim 6 further recites the additional elements of worker user electronic peripheral devices to said worker user devices. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are only a general link to a field of use or technological environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h) (discussing Affinity Labs). That is, although these additional elements do limit the use of the abstract idea, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (security technologies) and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the claims.
Claims 7-9 recite various additional elements of related to blockchain and cryptocurrency. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are claimed too broadly to be more than a general link to a field of use or technological environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h) (discussing Affinity Labs). That is, although these additional elements do limit the use of the abstract idea, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (security technologies) and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the claims.
Claims 10 and 11 recite the additional elements of displaying prompts and selecting from predetermined lists. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because the additional elements encompass generic computer functions of displaying and receiving data (i.e., displaying stored data and receiving user input), see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (noting the use of computers in their ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application).
Claims 12 and 13 recite the additional elements of worker user electronic peripheral devices to said worker user devices. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are only a general link to a field of use or technological environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h) (discussing Affinity Labs). That is, although these additional elements do limit the use of the abstract idea, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (security technologies) and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the claims.
Claims 12 and 13 further recite the additional elements of displaying a subset of job entries. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are only using software to tailor information and provide it to a user, which is not more than mere instructions to apply the exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f) (discussing Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA)).
Claims 14-18 recite the additional elements of the servers being off-shore or in orbit. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are only a general link to a field of use or technological environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h) (discussing Affinity Labs). That is, although these additional elements do limit the use of the abstract idea, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (ungrounded platforms) and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the claims.
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 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomar, US Pub. No. 2019/0279279, herein referred to as “Tomar” in view of Papa et al, US Pub. No. 2015/0220649, herein referred to as “Papa”.
Regarding claim 1, Tomar teaches:
one or more servers (server and computing devices, ¶[0015]),
configured to host a payment module (includes invoice and payment module, ¶[0044]),
and an application placed in electronic communication with electronic devices by way of a network, wherein a first subset of the electronic devices are associated with hiring entities (“the hiring user devices”) and a second subset of the electronic devices are associated with worker users (“the worker user devices”) (system is accessed by service providers smart phones and customer smart phones, ¶¶[0015], [0028] and Fig. 1),
said one or more servers comprising executable software instructions, which when executed, configures one or more processors to (computing devices and smart phones, e.g. ¶¶[0015], [0028]):
receive data from the worker user devices and establish profiles for the worker users at the application based on the data (service providers register with computing device and provides general information concerning himself or herself, and/or his or her business, ¶[0030]);
receive data from the hiring user devices and establish job entries at the application based on the data (customer is presented with an inquiry concerning desired services, ¶[0037]);
receive indications of acceptance of at least some of the job entries (customer sends request for hire and service provider accepts the hire, ¶[0041]);
receive indications of completion of jobs associated with the accepted job entries (customer confirms service provider finished work, ¶[0043]);
determine compensation amounts due to the worker users for the completed jobs by way of the payment module user (generates an invoice, ¶[0044]);
collect electronic payments from hiring entities for the completed jobs by way of the payment module; and disburse electronic payments to the worker users by way of the payment module (customer pays the invoice, ¶[0044]; see also ¶[0036] discussing payment methods).
However Tomar does not teach but Papa does teach:
an ownership exchange subsystem, generate, by way of the ownership exchange subsystem, indications of transfer of ownership or membership interest in a larger entity by the worker users (generates stock grant document on a grant template and performs stock grant, ¶¶[0162]-[0163]).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the contractor matching system of Tomar with the stock grants of Papa because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives or other market forces, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is one of ordinary skill would have recognized users of Tomar may wish to compensate workers in various ways, including granting stock, and accordingly would have modified Tomar to grant stock, as in Papa.
Regarding claim 19, Tomar teaches:
receiving, at one or more servers (server and computing devices, ¶[0015]),
data from a first subset of the electronic devices, each associated with a worker user (“worker user devices”) and establishing profiles for the worker users at an application hosted at the one or more servers based on the data (service providers register with computing device and provides general information concerning himself or herself, and/or his or her business, ¶[0030] and system is accessed by service providers smart phones, ¶¶[0015], [0028] and Fig. 1),);
receiving, at the one or more servers, data from a second subset of the electronic devices are associated with hiring entities (“hiring user devices”) and establishing job entries at the application based on the data (customer is presented with an inquiry concerning desired services, ¶[0037], and system is accessed by customer smart phones, ¶¶[0015], [0028] and Fig. 1);
receiving, at the one or more servers, indications of acceptances of at least some of the job entries (customer sends request for hire and service provider accepts the hire, ¶[0041]);
receiving, at the one or more servers, indications of completion of jobs associated with the accepted job entries (customer confirms service provider finished work, ¶[0043]);
determining, at a payment module hosted at the one or more servers, compensation amounts due to the worker users for the completed jobs (generates an invoice, ¶[0044]);
collecting, by way of the payment module, electronic payments from hiring entities for the completed jobs by way of the payment module; and disbursing electronic payments to the worker users by way of the payment module (customer pays the invoice, ¶[0044]; see also ¶[0036] discussing payment methods).
However Tomar does not teach but Papa does teach:
transferring, by way of an ownership exchange subsystem hosted at the one or more servers, indications of ownership or membership interest in a larger entity by and to the worker users (generates stock grant document on a grant template and performs stock grant, ¶¶[0162]-[0163]).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the contractor matching system of Tomar with the stock grants of Papa because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives or other market forces, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is one of ordinary skill would have recognized users of Tomar may wish to compensate workers in various ways, including granting stock, and accordingly would have modified Tomar to grant stock, as in Papa.
Claim(s) 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomar in view of Papa, further in view of Urrea, US Pub. No. 2007/0168199, herein referred to as “Urrea”.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Tomar and Papa teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and does not teach but Urrea does teach:
wherein: said one or more servers comprise additional executable software instructions, which when executed by the one or more processors, configures the one or more processors to: determine, by way of the payment module for each of the completed jobs, a benefits or membership fee due; subtract, from the collected payments, the benefits or membership fee to arrive at the payments for disbursement (payment system deducts union dues, ¶[0036]).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the contractor matching system with stock grants of Tomar and Papa with the payment deductions of Urrea because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives or other market forces, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is one of ordinary skill would have recognized users of Tomar and Papa have various dues to be paid and accordingly would have modified Tomar and Papa to deduct those, as in Urrea.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Tomar, Papa and Urrea teaches all the limitations of claim 2 and Tomar further teaches:
the indication of acceptance by the worker users is received from the worker user devices (customer sends request for hire and service provider accepts the hire on users devices, ¶[0041]);
and the indication of completion of the job associated with the accepted job entries is received from the hiring user devices (customer confirms service provider finished work on user device, ¶[0043]).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Tomar, Papa and Urrea teaches all the limitations of claim 3 and Papa further teaches:
said ownership exchange subsystem is configured to automatically generate, and at least partially fill-in, form documents as part of generating said indications of transfer of ownership or membership interest in the larger entity for electronic execution by, or on behalf of, said larger entity and said worker users (generates stock grant document on a grant template, ¶[0162]).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the contractor matching system with stock grants of Tomar and Papa with the payment deductions of Tomar because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives or other market forces, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is one of ordinary skill would have recognized users of Tomar and Papa have various dues to be paid and accordingly would have modified Tomar and Papa to deduct those, as in Urrea.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Tomar, Papa and Urrea teaches all the limitations of claim 4 and Papa further teaches:
wherein: said one or more servers comprise additional executable software instructions, which when executed by the one or more processors, configures the one or more processors to record the indications of the transfer of the transfer of the partial ownership or membership interest in the larger entity by the worker users at the application (grants stock and stores evidence, ¶¶[0163], [0164]).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the contractor matching system with stock grants of Tomar and Papa with the payment deductions of Tomar because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives or other market forces, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is one of ordinary skill would have recognized users of Tomar and Papa have various dues to be paid and accordingly would have modified Tomar and Papa to deduct those, as in Urrea.
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomar, Papa, and Urrea, in view of Zabar, US Pub. No. 2014/0304183, herein referred to as "Zabar", further in view of Cox et al, US Pub. No. 2015/0302414, herein referred to as "Cox".
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Tomar, Papa and Urrea teaches all the limitations of claim 5 and does not teach but Zabar does teach:
wherein: said one or more servers comprise additional executable software instructions, which when executed by the one or more processors, configures the one or more processors to generate, upon connection of the worker user electronic peripheral devices to the worker user devices blocks (verification device stores credential information, ¶[0037] and connects to user devices, ¶[0038]; see also ¶[0033] discussing near field communication).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the contractor matching system with stock grants of Tomar, Papa and Urrea with the credential verification device of Zabar because Zabar explicitly suggests verifying credentials when hiring contactors to ensure the contractors are not over stating their qualifications, ¶[0039]; see also MPEP 2143.I.G.
However the combination of Tomar, Papa, Urrea and Zabar does not teach but Cox does teach:
a visual display with a subset of the job entries at the respective worker user devices (generates map of outstanding service requests for contractor device, ¶[0102] and Fig. 12).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the contractor matching system with stock grants of Tomar, Papa, Urrea and Zabar with the ability to generate a visual display of available jobs as taught by Cox because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives or other market forces, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, generating a visual display of available jobs for the worker seeking a job to choose within a predetermined distance from the worker would have been obvious so that they can easily see where the jobs are located in reference to their current location. This visual representation of where the jobs are located based on the workers location can assist the worker in selecting a job most convenient for them to get to.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Tomar, Papa, Urrea, Zabar and Cox teaches all the limitations of claim 12 and Cox further teaches:
wherein: said visual display comprises a map with icons representing each of said job entries in said subset at locations representative of geographic locations for said job entry in said subset (generates map of outstanding service requests for contractor device, ¶[0102] and Fig. 12).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the contractor matching system with stock grants of Tomar, Papa, Urrea and Zabar with the ability to generate a visual display of available jobs as taught by Cox because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives or other market forces, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, generating a visual display of available jobs for the worker seeking a job to choose within a predetermined distance from the worker would have been obvious so that they can easily see where the jobs are located in reference to their current location. This visual representation of where the jobs are located based on the workers location can assist the worker in selecting a job most convenient for them to get to.
Claim(s) 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomar in view of Papa, further in view of Cella et al. US Pub. No. 2019/0171187, herein referred to as "Cella".
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Tomar and Papa teaches all the limitations of claim 1 does not teach but Cella does teach:
wherein: said one or more servers are located at one or more offshore locations (offshore operations, ¶[1510]).
Further, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to combine to combine the contractor matching system with stock grants of Tomar and Papa with the offshore operations as taught by Cella because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives or other market forces, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognized some users may wish to have the systems in remote locations like offshore and accordingly would have modified Tomar and Papa to use aerospace systems.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Tomar, Papa and Cella teaches all the limitations of claim 14 and Cella further teaches:
wherein: said one or more offshore locations comprise any one or more of: a maritime vessel configured for regular travel in international waters and an offshore platform located in international waters (offshore operations, ¶[1510]. Please note, the offshore platform located in international waters does not further limit the scope of the claim because it is only the intended use of the offshore platform (i.e., the jurisdictional location of the offshore platform does not relate to the system, see MPEP 2103.I.C.).
Further, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to combine to combine the contractor matching system with stock grants of Tomar and Papa with the offshore operations as taught by Cella because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives or other market forces, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognized some users may wish to have the systems in remote locations like offshore and accordingly would have modified Tomar and Papa to use aerospace systems.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Tomar and Papa teaches all the limitations of claim 1 does not teach but Cella does teach:
said one or more servers are located at one or more orbital systems (satellite system, ¶[2334]).
Further, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to combine to combine the contractor matching system with stock grants of Tomar and Papa with the offshore operations as taught by Cella because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives or other market forces, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognized some users may wish to have the systems in remote locations like orbit and accordingly would have modified Tomar and Papa to use aerospace systems.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Tomar, Papa and Cella teaches all the limitations of claim 16 and Cella further teaches:
wherein: said one or more orbital platforms comprise any one or more of: satellites, space stations, ships, orbiting platforms, and high-altitude balloons located, or configured for travel, at or above the Kármán line (satellite system, ¶[2334]).
Further, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to combine to combine the contractor matching system with stock grants of Tomar and Papa with the offshore operations as taught by Cella because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives or other market forces, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognized some users may wish to have the systems in remote locations like orbit and accordingly would have modified Tomar and Papa to use aerospace systems.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Tomar and Papa teaches all the limitations of claim 1 does not teach but Cella does teach:
wherein: said one or more servers, including said payment module and said ownership exchange subsystem, are located at one or more orbital systems and/or one or more offshore locations (offshore operations, ¶[1510]).
Further, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to combine to combine the contractor matching system with stock grants of Tomar and Papa with the offshore operations as taught by Cella because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives or other market forces, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognized some users may wish to have the systems in remote locations like offshore and accordingly would have modified Tomar and Papa to use aerospace systems.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomar in view of Papa, further in view of Urrea, further in view of Cella.
Regarding claim 20, Tomar teaches:
one or more servers (server and computing devices, ¶[0015]),
configured to host a payment module (includes invoice and payment module, ¶[0044]),
and an application placed in electronic communication with electronic devices by way of a network, wherein a first subset of the electronic devices are each associated with hiring entities (“the hiring user devices”) and a second subset of the electronic devices are associated with worker users (“the worker user devices”) (system is accessed by service providers smart phones and customer smart phones, ¶¶[0015], [0028] and Fig. 1),
said one or more servers comprising executable software instructions, which when executed by one or more processors configures the one or more processors to (computing devices and smart phones, e.g. ¶¶[0015], [0028]):
receive data from the worker user devices and establish profiles for the worker users at the application based on the data (service providers register with computing device and provides general information concerning himself or herself, and/or his or her business, ¶[0030]);
receive data from the hiring user devices and establish job entries at the application based on the data (customer is presented with an inquiry concerning desired services, ¶[0037]);
receive indications of acceptances of at least some of the job entries from at least some of the worker user devices (customer sends request for hire and service provider accepts the hire, ¶[0041]);
receive indications of completion of jobs associated with the accepted job entries from at least some of the hiring user devices (customer confirms service provider finished work, ¶[0043]);
determine compensation amounts due to the worker users for the completed jobs by way of the payment module (generates an invoice, ¶[0044]);
collect electronic payments from hiring entities for the completed jobs by way of the payment module; disburse the payments electronically to the worker users by way of the payment module (customer pays the invoice, ¶[0044]; see also ¶[0036] discussing payment methods).
However Tomar does not teach but Papa does teach:
wherein said one or more servers, including said payment module and said ownership exchange subsystem, are located at one or more orbital systems and/or one or more offshore locations (generates stock grant document on a grant template and performs stock grant, ¶¶[0162]-[0163]).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the contractor matching system of Tomar with the stock grants of Papa because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives or other market forces, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is one of ordinary skill would have recognized users of Tomar may wish to compensate workers in various ways, including granting stock, and accordingly would have modified Tomar to grant stock, as in Papa.
However the combination of Tomar and Papa dos not teach but Urrea does teach
determine, by way of the payment module for each of the completed jobs, a benefits or membership fee due; subtract, from the collected payments, the benefits or membership fee to arrive at payments for disbursement (payment system deducts union dues, ¶[0036]).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the contractor matching system with stock grants of Tomar and Papa with the payment deductions of Urrea because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives or other market forces, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is one of ordinary skill would have recognized users of Tomar and Papa have various dues to be paid and accordingly would have modified Tomar and Papa to deduct those, as in Urrea.
However the combination of Tomar, Papa and Urrea does not teach but Cella does teach:
wherein: said one or more servers, including said payment module and said ownership exchange subsystem, are located at one or more orbital systems and/or one or more offshore locations (offshore operations, ¶[1510]).
Further, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to combine to combine the contractor matching system with stock grants of Tomar, Papa and Urrea with the offshore operations as taught by Cella because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives or other market forces, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognized some users may wish to have the systems in remote locations like offshore and accordingly would have modified Tomar and Papa to use aerospace systems.
Claims 6-11 are not rejected under 102 or 103 and would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and are able to overcome all the relevant 101 and 112 rejections.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENDAN S O'SHEA whose telephone number is (571)270-1064. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 10-6.
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, Nathan Uber can be reached at (571) 270-3923. 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.
/BRENDAN S O'SHEA/Examiner, Art Unit 3626