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
This action is in response to the Amendment filed on 7/21/2026, and is a Final Office Action. Claims 2-4, 6-22 are pending in the application.
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 2-4, 6-22 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 the first format; in response to determining that the first vendor rejected the lead, formatting the lead into a second format associated with the second vendor; and transmitting, and for display , electronic interactive user interface data configured to notify the first consumer of the second vendor being a match; formatting the lead into a first format associated with the first vendor; receiving a second electronic message that includes a second code; in response to receiving the first electronic message, determining that the first code indicates rejection of the lead by the first vendor; automatically sending the lead in the second format without indicating the rejection to the first consumer; in response to receiving the second electronic message, determining that the second code indicates acceptance of the lead. Applicant’s Spec. provides further context to the claimed invention as pertaining to the commercial interaction realm: “As a result, what is needed are systems and methods for automatically optimizing the matching of consumers to service providers and vendors, to ensure that interested consumers are matched to service providers offering products with criteria that are met by the interested consumers, and preferably identifying multiple service providers in order to offer the consumer with a choice of service providers. An automated system has the advantage that it can, in real time, retrieve up-to-date product pricing and rate information and, to the extent possible, provide results to the user of the system without significant delay, thus resulting in a desirable user experience.”, “In one embodiment, a system for matching consumers with vendors includes a processor, a network interface in communication with the processor, a data storage device in communication with the processor, and computer-executable instructions stored in computer storage. The instructions are configured, when executed by the processor, to cause computer hardware to perform operations comprising: (1) matching a consumer lead comprising information about a consumer with one or more vendors selected from a set of vendors identified in data records stored on the data storage device; (2) sending, via the network interface, the lead to the matched vendors; (3) receiving a real-time indication of a rejection from one of the matched vendors; (4) matching the lead with a replacement vendor; and (5) sending the lead to the replacement vendor.”, “Although this specification generally discusses products being loans such as auto loans, it is contemplated that the products may be other products, such as goods and/or services. In an embodiment, the plans in the plans database 209 include criteria for whether a person qualifies for a particular plan. The criteria may be based on, for example, a person’s credit score or credit history, personal information, demographic information, or other information about the individual. A service provider may offer only a single plan or may offer multiple plans which may have different criteria. This is useful, for example, to support different plans for people meeting different criteria, such as people having different credit scores, as a service provider would then be able to offer, for example, auto loans with different rates based on credit scores. Additionally, plans may be associated with a bounty value, that is, an amount that the service provider associated with the plan is willing to pay to an operator of the rematch engine in exchange for the rematch engine providing the service provider with a set of requested personal information about an individual, otherwise known as a lead. It may be the case that the service provider is willing to pay a bounty value if the rematch engine identifies a lead matching the criteria of the plan. The bounty value may be fixed, or it may be adjusted depending on the nature of the lead or on other factors.” 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/ formatting the lead into a first format associated with the first vendor. 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 3-4, 6-10, 12-18, 20-22 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.
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered; Applicant argues with substance:
As the claim interpretation does not necessarily appear to be at issue with respect to any claim rejection, Applicant believes that the question of whether any limitations are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) is not an issue to be resolved in prosecution of this Office Action. In addition, regardless of the Office Action's position related to the claim interpretation, Applicant does not acquiesce to the interpretation stated in the Office Action and Applicant reserves its right to dispute or argue its position with respect to claim interpretation in the future.
The 35 USC 112 (f) is being maintained by the Examiner.
1. The Claims Are Patent Eligible Under Step 2A
For at least the following reasons, applicant respectfully submits that the claims comply with 35 U.S.C. § 101(1) the claims do not recite an abstract idea from any one of the enumerated abstract categories; and (2) even if it were assumed that the claims recite an abstract idea from an enumerated category, Applicant respectfully submits that the claims recite a practical application of the alleged abstract idea, and thus are not "directed to" an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 1
The claims do not recite an abstract idea in any of the enumerated abstract idea categories. In particular, the claims do not recite mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes. Thus, the claims are subject matter eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as not being directed to an abstract idea. Applicant's arguments will focus on Step 2A - Prong 2 below). However, Applicant reserves the right to argue with respect to Step 2A - Prong 1 further in the future.
Step 2A, Prong 2
Assuming the claims recite an abstract idea (which Applicant maintains they do not), the claims recite additional elements that integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application. For example, the claims, when taken as a whole, meaningfully limit the "mental process that can be performed in the human mind or using pen/paper," Office Action at p. 6., recited in the claims to a specific contextual environment including one or more of: (1) formatting a lead in a first format associated with requirements of a first vendor and automatically sending the formatted lead to a first vendor device, (2) receiving a first code from the first vendor device and determining that the first vendor rejected the lead, (3) in response to determining that the first vendor rejected the lead, formatting the lead into a second format associated with requirements of a second vendor, and (4) automatically sending the reformatted lead to a second vendor device. This is analogous to USPTO Example 42. In that example, the eligibility analysis turned on the ordered computer- network operations that solved a technical information-sharing problem such as, for example, receiving information from remote users in non-standardized formats, converting the information into a standardized format, storing the standardized information, automatically generating an update message, and transmitting the message in real time so that remote users had immediate access to up-to-date information. The Office concluded that these additional elements improved prior systems by enabling remote users to share information in real time in a standardized format regardless of the input format. Amended claim 2 is analogous to Example 42. Like in Example 42, claim 2 recites specific computer-network operations for adapting lead data to the formats used by different remote systems. For example, leads "are generally constructed by the rematch system to include appropriate personal information required by the service providers," and that, "[a]s a result, the leads may [. . .] vary by each service provider depending on that service provider's requirements." Spec. [0039]. Amended claim 2's limitations of formatting a lead in a first format associated with requirements of a first vendor, automatically sending the formatted lead to a first vendor device, and, in response to the first vendor rejecting the lead, formatting the lead in a second format associated with requirements of a second vendor and automatically sending the reformatted lead to a second vendor device meaningfully constrain the claim to a practical application in which lead information is electronically prepared and transmitted in formats required by different remote vendor systems, rather than merely identifying a preferred vendor as an abstract commercial result. Claim 2 is further analogous to Example 42 because the amended claim recites processing vendor-specific electronic response data into a standardized form usable by the claimed workflow. For example, vendor responses may be "indicated in a status code sent in accordance with a protocol used by the [. . .] system." Spec. [ [0069]. Moreover, a service provider "accepts or rejects the lead by sending an electronic message to the system that indicates acceptance or rejection," and that, "[i]f a lead is rejected, the rejection message may include a rejection code that indicates a reason for the rejection." Spec. [0042]. In this way, the electronic code received from the first vendor device may reflect a vendor-specific or non-standard electronic format, while the processing of that code into a rejection message provides the standardized indication that the system uses to determine that the first vendor rejected the lead. As in Example 42, where non-standardized information received from remote users was converted into a standardized format to enable real-time information sharing across a network, amended claim 2 uses the code processing to normalize a vendor-specific electronic response and thereby enable the system to automatically reformat and reroute the lead to a second vendor device. In addition, whether or not certain practical applications of the claims can be considered well-understood, routine, and conventional (a point Applicant does not concede), this analysis is not part of the Prong 2 inquiry and cannot form the basis for finding that the claims do not recite a practical application. Regardless, the claims are anchored to and thus, integrate a practical application and provide a particular, specific and not well-understood application of formatting a lead in a first format associated with requirements of a first vendor and automatically sending the formatted lead to a first vendor device, receiving and processing an electronic rejection code from the first vendor device into a rejection message usable by the claimed rematching workflow, and, in response to determining that the first vendor rejected the lead, formatting the lead in a second format associated with requirements of a second vendor and automatically sending the reformatted lead to a second vendor device. Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that the claims are not directed to any abstract idea and that they also meet the criteria of a practical application. Step 2A is thus satisfied and no further analysis is necessary.
The pending claims do recite an abstract idea and the additional elements do not , alone or in combination, integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they represent significantly more than the abstract idea itself, as noted above. Matching customers to service providers/vendors represents a business practice/goal, not other technology/technical field; thus, improving this practice pertains to a business practice optimization, not to an improvement to other technology/technical field. The claimed limitations pertaining to formatting data do recite an abstract idea, as noted above. The pending claims and USPTO Example 42 Claim 1 have different fact patterns and different claim sets, and thus the two are not analogous. Furthermore, in Example 42 Claim 1, it was deemed that the claim recites a combination of additional elements including storing information, providing remote access over a network, converting updated information that was input by a user in a non-standardized form to a standardized format, automatically generating a message whenever updated information is stored, and transmitting the message to all of the users. The claim as a whole integrates the method of organizing human activity into a practical application. Specifically, the additional elements recite a specific improvement over prior art systems by allowing remote users to share information in real time in a standardized format regardless of the format in which the information was input by the user. Thus, the claim is eligible because it is not directed to the recited judicial exception (abstract idea). Contrary to Example 42 , Claim 1, the pending instant claims do not
recite a combination of additional elements including storing information, providing remote access over a network, converting updated information that was input by a user in a non-standardized form to a standardized format, automatically generating a message whenever updated information is stored, and transmitting the message to all of the users; the pending instant claims do not as a whole integrate the method of organizing human activity into a practical application. Specifically, the additional elements recite a specific improvement over prior art systems by allowing remote users to share information in real time in a standardized format regardless of the format in which the information was input by the user.
Applicant’s Spec. provides further context to the claimed invention as pertaining to the commercial interaction realm, and describes the pending claimed invention as seeking to, when implemented, at best optimize a business practice/goal: “As a result, what is needed are systems and methods for automatically optimizing the matching of consumers to service providers and vendors, to ensure that interested consumers are matched to service providers offering products with criteria that are met by the interested consumers, and preferably identifying multiple service providers in order to offer the consumer with a choice of service providers. An automated system has the advantage that it can, in real time, retrieve up-to-date product pricing and rate information and, to the extent possible, provide results to the user of the system without significant delay, thus resulting in a desirable user experience.”, “In one embodiment, a system for matching consumers with vendors includes a processor, a network interface in communication with the processor, a data storage device in communication with the processor, and computer-executable instructions stored in computer storage. The instructions are configured, when executed by the processor, to cause computer hardware to perform operations comprising: (1) matching a consumer lead comprising information about a consumer with one or more vendors selected from a set of vendors identified in data records stored on the data storage device; (2) sending, via the network interface, the lead to the matched vendors; (3) receiving a real-time indication of a rejection from one of the matched vendors; (4) matching the lead with a replacement vendor; and (5) sending the lead to the replacement vendor.”, “Although this specification generally discusses products being loans such as auto loans, it is contemplated that the products may be other products, such as goods and/or services. In an embodiment, the plans in the plans database 209 include criteria for whether a person qualifies for a particular plan. The criteria may be based on, for example, a person’s credit score or credit history, personal information, demographic information, or other information about the individual. A service provider may offer only a single plan or may offer multiple plans which may have different criteria. This is useful, for example, to support different plans for people meeting different criteria, such as people having different credit scores, as a service provider would then be able to offer, for example, auto loans with different rates based on credit scores. Additionally, plans may be associated with a bounty value, that is, an amount that the service provider associated with the plan is willing to pay to an operator of the rematch engine in exchange for the rematch engine providing the service provider with a set of requested personal information about an individual, otherwise known as a lead. It may be the case that the service provider is willing to pay a bounty value if the rematch engine identifies a lead matching the criteria of the plan. The bounty value may be fixed, or it may be adjusted depending on the nature of the lead or on other factors.”
There is no technical support/technical evidence in the Spec, including the paras noted by the Applicant, that the pending claims, when implemented, improve the functioning of the computing device itself or other technology/technical field. See Office action above for the detailed/reasoned 35 USC 101 analysis.
The Office Action rejected claims 1, 11, and 19 as allegedly patentably indistinct over claims 19, 28, and 37 of U.S. Patent No. 11,430,009 and claims 2, 11, 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,154,134. Applicant respectfully requests that the double patenting rejection be held in abeyance. If this is the last remaining issue (e.g. there are no other rejections), Examiner is invited to contact Applicant's representative, Jacob S. Etling, at (771) 777-3312 to discuss options.
The pending double patenting rejections have been overcome and have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRU CIRNU whose telephone number is (571)272-7775. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00am-5pm. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Sincerely,
/Alexandru Cirnu/
Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3622
8/12/2026
Prosecution Insights