Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
Claims 2-21 have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/23/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: network interface configured to, in claims 11-18.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof – i.e. the network interface represents a generic computing element.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 2 is directed towards a method, thus meeting the Step 1 eligibility criterion. Claim 2 does recite the abstract concept of a commercial interaction, including advertising or sales activities or behaviors, business relations/activities , and fundamental economic practice, which has been identified as an abstract idea by the MPEP. The relevant claimed limitations include:
during execution of a consumer browsing session: transmitting, for display on a display screen, electronic interactive user interface data configured to prompt the first consumer for lead information that includes personal information associated with the first consumer; receiving, the lead information comprising a request for a matching of the first consumer with one or more vendors of a plurality of vendors; accessing, supplemental data associated with the first consumer; generating, a lead comprising at least a portion of a first consumer lead profile based at least in part on the lead information and the supplemental data; matching, the first consumer lead profile with a first set of vendors from the plurality of vendors based at least in part on vendor ranking scores for the plurality of vendors, wherein the first set of vendors includes at least the first vendor and the second vendor; based at least in part on the vendor ranking scores corresponding to the first vendor and the second vendor, automatically selecting, the first vendor as a first potential match for the first consumer and the second vendor as a second potential match for the first consumer; automatically sending, the lead; in response to receiving an indication of a rejection of the lead from the first vendor device, automatically sending, the lead without indicating the rejection to the first consumer; receiving, an electronic message that includes an indication of an acceptance of the lead; and transmitting, and for display , electronic interactive user interface data configured to notify the first consumer of the second vendor being a match. Claim 2 also recites the abstract concept of a mental concept- i.e. mental process that can be performed in the human mind or using pen/paper, including an observation/evaluation/judgment, which has been identified as an abstract idea by the MPEP: Receiving the lead information comprising a request for a matching of the first consumer with one or more vendors of a plurality of vendors / accessing supplemental data associated with the first consumer / generating a lead comprising at least a portion of a first consumer lead profile based at least in part on the lead information and the supplemental data / matching the first consumer lead profile with a first set of vendors from the plurality of vendors based at least in part on vendor ranking scores for the plurality vendors, wherein the first set of vendors includes at least the first vendor and the second vendor/ based at last in part on the vendor ranking scores selecting the first vendor as a first potential match for the first consumer and the second vendor as a second potential match for the fits consumer. These claimed limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computing elements – see below, thus still being in the mental process category.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 2 includes the additional elements of a first consumer device including a display screen/ network interface /processor / consumer devices comprising a first vendor device associated with a first vendor and a second device associated with a second vendor/ a third party device associated with a third party database , different from the vendor devices , which represent generic computing elements. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor do they apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 2 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because as noted above, the claimed computing elements represent generic computing elements; they are recited at a high level of generality. The additional elements do not , alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor do they apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Therefore, Claim 2 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 11, 19 are directed to a system and CRM for performing similar claimed limitations to those of claim 2. Claims 11, 19 perform the claimed limitations using only generic components of a networked computer system. Therefore, claims 11, 19 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more for the reasons given in the discussion of claim 2.
Remaining dependent claims 3-10, 12-18, 20-21 further recite and narrow the abstract idea of Claims 1/11/19. The claims further recite the abstract concept of a mathematical concept -i.e. calculating bounty values for each vendor of the first set of vendors, wherein the bounty values are calculated based at least in part on the lead information that includes the personal information associated with the first consumer. The claims further recite the additional elements of data storage devices / an external third party service provider, which represent generic computing elements; they are recited at a high level of generality. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination with the other additional elements, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claims above do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are not patent eligible.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321 (c) or 1.321 (d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321 (b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-l.jsp.
Claims 1, 11, 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 19, 28, 37 of Application No. 16/573,821(Patent No. 11430009). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the difference is the following:
The independent claims (claims 19, 28, 37) of Application No. 16/572,821 recite the additional limitations of:
A partial lead profile associated with the first consumer lead profile; the partial lead profile comprises information that is insufficient to contact the consumer;
Determining a vendor ranking score for each of the plurality of vendors
The independent claims of the instant pending application (claims 2, 11, 19) do recite the feature of generating a lead comprising at least a portion of a first consumer lead profile, as well vendors that are ranked using ranking scores.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to change a lead profile to a partial lead profile, and to determine vendor ranking scores, in order to cover slightly broader limitations. Furthermore, the claimed elements perform the same function as before.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321 (c) or 1.321 (d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321 (b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-l.jsp.
Claims 1, 11, 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2, 11, 19 of Application No. 17/813,210(Patent No. 12154134). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the difference is the following:
The independent claims (claims 2, 11, 19) of Application No. 17/813,210 recite the additional limitations of:
Transmitting data configured to notify the first consumer of the second vendor being a match, wherein the transmitting occurs during the consumer browsing session
Determining a vendor ranking score for each of the plurality of vendors
The independent claims of the instant pending application (claims 2, 11, 19) do recite the feature of transmitting data configured to notify the first consumer of the second vendor being a match, as well as vendors that are ranked using ranking scores.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to change transmitting data configured to notify the first consumer of the second vendor being a match to transmitting data configured to notify the first consumer of the second vendor being a match , wherein the transmitting occurs during the browsing session, and to determine vendor ranking scores, in order to cover slightly broader limitations. Furthermore, the claimed elements perform the same function as before.
Relevant prior art
The prior art of record does not teach neither singly nor in combination the limitations of claims 2-21. Collins (20050038688) teaches matching consumers and service providers, comprising: receiving from a plurality of service providers registration data based on type of service provided by each service provider and storing the registration data in a Web Services registry and a system database as service provider profiles; receiving from a consumer a request for service including parameters identifying characteristics of the service requested; filtering the request for service through the service provider profiles stored in the system database for service provider profiles having characteristics matching the characteristics specified by the consumer and presenting service provider information for the service providers resulting from the filtering to the consumer for selection; receiving a service provider selection from the consumer and an indication of how the consumer would like to be contacted by the selected service provider; contacting the selected service provider with the consumer's request for service in a manner specified by the service provider in the service provider's registration data; receiving a response from the selected service provider indicating whether the service provider will accept the consumer's request; and if the selected service provider accepts the consumer's request for service, then charging the service provider a fee and providing contact information for the consumer to the selected service provider upon receipt of payment of the fee. However, it lacks the combination of claimed elements of the pending independent claims.
Rice (20060184381) teaches matching users with providers, including: allowing users to identify the appropriate service provider, to connect the two parties, and if it has been determined that the service provider is unable to meet the consumer's need, to facilitate a match to other pre-qualified service providers who can meet their need. However, it lacks the combination of claimed elements of the pending independent claims.
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 does the available prior art suggest or otherwise render obvious further modification of the evidence at hand. Such modifications would require substantial reconstruction relying solely on improper hindsight bias, and thus would not be obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexandru Cirnu whose telephone number is (571) 272-7775. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM. 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, Ilana Spar can be reached on (571) 270-7537. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Alexandru Cirnu/
Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3622
4/20/2026
Prosecution Insights