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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This Final Office action is in reply to the Applicant amendment filed on x.
2. Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12-14, 16-18, 20 have been amended.
3. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
In the previous office action, Claims 1-20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter (abstract idea). Applicants have not amended Claims 1-20 to provide statutory support and the rejection is maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 27 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In the remarks regarding the 35 USC § 101 rejection for Claims 1-20, Applicant argues that: (1) the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, and even if they were, they would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Still commensurate to the two-part subject matter eligibility framework decision in the Federal court decision in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank International et al., (Alice), 2019 revised patent subject matter eligibility guidance (2019 PEG) and the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility (“October 2019 Update), and the new “July 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Examples, including on Artificial Intelligence”, and the Examiner details the maintained rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 in the below rejection with further explanation. Applicant argues that as amended, Applicant states: “” (see Remarks/Arguments page 8). However the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The core of Claims 1-20 recite involve recommending tasks and editorial guides to a user based on their profile, and then presenting that content. This is a fundamental activity of filtering, marketing, or tailoring information to individuals, which human beings have done traditionally (e.g., a travel agent or store clerk recommending specific tasks/brochures to a customer based on their preferences). The claims still recite Certain methods of organizing human activity –marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The core of the claim involves recommending tasks and editorial guides to a user based on their profile, and then presenting that content. This is a fundamental activity of filtering, marketing, or tailoring information to individuals, which human beings have done traditionally (e.g., a travel agent or store clerk recommending specific tasks/brochures to a customer based on their preferences). Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). The steps of "comparing" a user profile aspect to database aspects and "determining" a match are logical, mathematical relationships (comparisons and filtering) that can be practically performed in the human mind or using a pen and paper. Analyzing a profile against a list of criteria to find a match does not require a computer to conceptually exist; computers are simply used here as a tool to execute the logic faster. “method” Claims 1-16 still do not recite any computer architecture components to support the claim limitations. There is no indication as to how at least independent Claim 1’s step limitations are accomplished other than a user/person is performing the steps with pencil/pen to paper to a physical database folder. Because the claim language explicitly recites steps that filter information based on matching criteria and organize how content is recommended to a human user, the claim does recite an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong 1.
For the analysis under Step 2a Prong 2, Claims 17-20 recite additional elements directed to “one or more processors; memory storing program instructions; database; non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” (e.g., see Applicants’ published Specification ¶’s 10-13, 23-30). Therefore, the claims contain computer components that are cited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Simply implementing an abstract idea on a computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The databases, user interfaces, and processing steps ("comparing," "determining") are recited generically. There is no specialized hardware or proprietary algorithm disclosed in the text that improves the operation of the computer itself. The claim does not solve a technical problem in computer functionality or network infrastructure. Instead, it uses conventional computer components as a tool to execute the business/organizational logic of matching user profiles to content (tasks/guides). However, “method” claims 1-16 still do not recite any additional elements, namely no computer architecture components to support the claim limitations and do not pass this step of the analysis. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) (h).
For the analysis under Step 2B as explained in MPEP § 2106.05, Claims 1-20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea nor recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements of “one or more processors; memory storing program instructions; database; non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”, etc. are generically-recited computer-related elements that amount to a mere instruction to “apply it” (the abstract idea) on the computer-related elements (see MPEP § 2106.05 (f) – Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception). These additional elements in the claims are recited at a high level of generality and are merely limiting the field of use of the judicial exception (see MPEP §2106.05 (h) – Field of Use and Technological Environment). There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the function of a computer or improves any other technology. These elements rely entirely on generic computer components performing their ordinary functions (retrieving data, hosting databases). There is no specific hardware configuration or improvement to database technology. The elements, both individually and as an ordered combination, do not add "significantly more" to the abstract idea. They merely define the abstract concept of profile-based content matching and restrict it to a generic computing environment. Consequently, the claim is non-statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. method” claims 1-16 still do not recite any additional elements, namely no computer architecture components to support the claim limitations and do not pass this step of the analysis.
In summary as indicated below through Steps 1-2B, the recitation of generic computer components performing their ordinary functions to perform the claim limitations amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer components. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. For at least these reasons, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant submits that: (2) Gallagher et al. (Gallagher) (US 2014/0172479) does not teach or suggest in amended Claims 1-20: various broadly recited amendments [see Remarks pages 9-12]. With regard to argument (2), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As seen below in the maintained rejection under Gallagher, the Examiner has provided additional clarification and citations to Applicant’s broadly recited claim recitations. For at least this reason, the rejection is maintained. It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, paragraphs, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123. The Examiner has a duty and responsibility to the public and to Applicant to interpret the claims as broadly as reasonably possible during prosecution. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1 393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969).
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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims as a whole recite certain grouping of an abstract idea and are analyzed in the following step process: Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims as a whole recite certain grouping of an abstract idea and are analyzed in the following step process:
Step 1: Claims 17-20 are each focused to a statutory category of invention, namely “system; non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” sets. However, “method” Claims 1-16 still do not recite any computer architecture components to support the claim limitations. There is no indication as to how at least independent Claim 1’s step limitations are accomplished other than a user/person is performing the step limitations with pencil/pen to paper to different physical database folders. Despite this failure to pass Step 1, the Examiner proceeds to the next steps of the analysis.
Step 2A: Prong One: Claims 1-20 recite limitations that set forth the abstract ideas, namely, the claims as a whole recite the claimed invention as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent representative Claim 1 recites steps for, basically, recommending tasks and guides based on a user profile as:
“determining an aspect of a user profile;
accessing a first database comprising a plurality of tasks;
accessing a second database comprising a plurality of guides, wherein each guide comprises editorial content associated with implementing one or more tasks;
comparing the aspect of the user profile to one or more first aspects of each of the respective plurality of tasks stored in the first database;
determining, based on the comparing the aspect of the user profile to the one or more first aspects, one or more recommended tasks of the plurality of tasks that correspond with the aspect of the user profile;
comparing the aspect of the user profile to one or more second aspects of the plurality of guides;
determining, based on the comparing the aspect of the user profile to one or more second aspects, one or more recommended guides of the plurality of guides that correspond with the aspect of the user profile;
presenting a first user interface recommending at least one of the one or more recommended tasks or the one or more recommended guides;
receiving user selection of at least one of the one or more recommended tasks;
presenting a second user interface comprising the at least one of the one or more recommended tasks and including editorial content associated with implementing the at least one of the one or more recommended tasks;
receiving user selection of at least one of the one or more recommended guides; and
presenting a third user interface comprising the at least one of the one or more recommended guides and including editorial content associated with the at least one of the one or more recommended guides”
Step 2A, Prong One analysis focuses on whether a claim recites a judicial exception by evaluating if it falls into one of three specific groupings as follows:
Certain methods of organizing human activity –marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations; managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The core of the claim involves recommending tasks and editorial guides to a user based on their profile, and then presenting that content. This is a fundamental activity of filtering, marketing, or tailoring information to individuals, which human beings have done traditionally (e.g., a travel agent or store clerk recommending specific tasks/brochures to a customer based on their preferences). The claim also involves managing user profiles, comparing them, and recommending tasks/guides. Recommending, sorting, and presenting content (tasks/guides) to a user based on profile aspects is fundamentally a business/advertising method. Matching user profiles to specific training or procedural guides falls under instructing or guiding user behavior.
Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). The steps of comparing aspects of a user profile to tasks and guides are, at their core, conceptual, cognitive evaluations that could be performed in the human mind. The core comparisons (comparing a user profile to task aspects) can be performed in the human mind, constituting a mental process. See MPEP § 2106.04(a) III C. Hence, the claims are ineligible under Step 2A Prong one. Furthermore, the dependent claims are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception.
Prong Two: Claims 1-20: With regard to this step of the analysis (as explained in MPEP § 2106.04(d)), the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 17-20 recite additional elements directed to “one or more processors; memory storing program instructions; database; non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” (e.g., see Applicants’ published Specification ¶’s 10-13, 23-30). Therefore, the claims contain computer components that are cited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Simply implementing an abstract idea on a computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the dependent claims are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception. The limitations of the claims do not transform the abstract idea that they recite into patent-eligible subject matter because the claims simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea using generally-recited computer components, and furthermore do not amount to an improvement to a computer or any other technology, and thus are ineligible. “method” claims 1-16 do not recite any additional elements, namely no computer architecture components to support the claim limitations and do not pass this step of the analysis. The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The features surrounding the abstract idea are conventional computer functions operating as expected to automate a standard data-matching process. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A, and must proceed to Step 2B (Search for an Inventive Concept) to determine eligibility. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) (h).
Step 2B: As explained in MPEP § 2106.05, Claims 1-20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea nor recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements of “one or more processors; memory storing program instructions; database; non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”, etc. are generically-recited computer-related elements that amount to a mere instruction to “apply it” (the abstract idea) on the computer-related elements (see MPEP § 2106.05 (f) – Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception). These additional elements in the claims are recited at a high level of generality and are merely limiting the field of use of the judicial exception (see MPEP §2106.05 (h) – Field of Use and Technological Environment). There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the function of a computer or improves any other technology. Furthermore, the dependent claims are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception. The limitations of the claims do not transform the abstract idea that they recite into patent-eligible subject matter because the claims simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea using generally-recited computer components, and furthermore do not amount to an improvement to a computer or any other technology, and thus are ineligible. “method” claims 1-16 do not recite any additional elements, namely no computer architecture components to support the claim limitations and do not pass this step of the analysis.
The Examiner interprets that the steps of the claimed invention both individually and as an ordered combination result in Mere Instructions to Apply a Judicial Exception (see MPEP §2106.05 (f)). These claims recite only the idea of a solution or outcome with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism used for accomplishing the result. Here, the claims utilize a computer or other machinery (e.g., see Applicants’ published Specification ¶’s 10-13, 23-30) regarding using existing computer processors as well as program products comprising machine-readable media for carrying or having machine-executable instructions or data structures stored. “task management system 100” in its ordinary capacity for performing tasks (e.g., to receive, analyze, transmit and display data) and/or use computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice and certain methods of organization human activities) and does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Software implementations are accomplished with standard programming techniques with logic to perform connection steps, processing steps, comparison steps and decisions steps. These claims are directed to being a commonplace business method being applied on a general-purpose computer (see Alice Corp. Pty, Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 1357, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983 (2014)); Versata Dev. Group, Inc., v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 D.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015)) and require the use of software such as via a server to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer. “method” claims 1-16 do not recite any additional elements, namely no computer architecture components to support the claim limitations and do not pass this step of the analysis. Based on all these, Examiner finds that when viewed either individually or in combination, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) that raise to the high standards of eligibility to transform the abstract idea(s) into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea(s) such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea(s) itself. Accordingly, Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea exception) without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gallagher et al. (Gallagher) (US 2014/0172479).
With regard to Claims 1, 17, 20, Gallagher teaches a method/system comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing program instructions that, when executed on the one or more processors, cause the system /non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that (system and method; database repository; program), when executed, cause performance of operations comprising (see at least paragraphs 29-31; FIGURE’s 1-3):
determining an aspect (specialties; Service Request) of a user profile (The systems include a home profile database, a service request match processor, and a service order processor. The home profile database provides a comprehensive database repository for user information and a home profile of all home related information. The service request match processor contains a matching program that compares a home maintenance service request submitted by a customer with a service provider database and generates a match of the home maintenance service request with a best fit service provider, based on several criteria) (see at least paragraphs 7-8, 74-78);
accessing a first database (Profile database; Homeowner Dashboard) comprising a plurality of tasks (All contractors that have signaled their availability are included in the program's second process which selects the available contractor that can complete all or most of the homeowner's selected tasks based on priority variables from the provider of the system/method and/or the resident. The system may select more than one available qualified contractor 1) if the Service Request includes tasks that require different technical expertise; service tasks; service request items) (see at least paragraphs 60-66, 74-78, 116);
accessing a second database (Contractor database; Contractor Profile Database) comprising a plurality of guides (contractors; All contractors that have signaled their availability are included in the program's second process which selects the available contractor that can complete all or most of the homeowner's selected tasks based on priority variables from the provider of the system/method and/or the resident. The system may select more than one available qualified contractor 1) if the Service Request includes tasks that require different technical expertise; service tasks), wherein each guide comprises editorial content (Contractors indicate their availability to perform the desired work through e-mail or through the online Contractor Module and Contractor dashboard 108. All contractors that have signaled their availability are included in the program's second process which selects the available contractor that can complete all or most of the homeowner's selected tasks based on priority variables from the provider of the system/method and/or the resident; Once the contractor completes the initial Service Request visit, the Work Order completion page is filled out with a Complete or Incomplete status for each task included on the original Work Order 109. Additional work performed at the request of the resident may also be added to the Work Order; the home profile database provides a query and reporting function that is available through the Homeowner Dashboard, along with viewing and administration controls via the Staff Dashboard. The customer can retrieve the home profile information in the form of various historical reports and status queries (Home Health Reports) that are viewed online, edited, or printed for offline storage) associated with implementing one or more tasks (All contractors that have signaled their availability are included in the program's second process which selects the available contractor that can complete all or most of the homeowner's selected tasks based on priority variables from the provider of the system/method and/or the resident. The system may select more than one available qualified contractor 1) if the Service Request includes tasks that require different technical expertise) (see at least paragraphs 60-66, 73-78, 81);
comparing (matching program 302; analyzes; Identify; The service request match processor or match processor compares request information to the Contractor Profile Database, intelligently matching requests to the available skill sets, geographic information, ratings history, and other data points. It then issues an Opportunity to one or more potential Contractors for their review/acceptance) the aspect of the user profile to one or more first aspects (specialties; Service Request) each other of the respective plurality of tasks (The matching program 302 then analyzes the user-provided request, using multiple criteria for determining a potential best-fit, including but not limited to the following: 1) Accumulate the tasks into categories based on the specialties. 2) Identify the geography. 3) Search for contractors in the geography that perform services in the task categories; intelligently matching requests to the available skill sets, geographic information, ratings history, and other data points) stored in the first database ((Profile database; Homeowner Dashboard)) (see at least paragraphs 60-66, 73-78, 81);
determining, based on the comparing the aspect of the user profile to the one or more first aspects, one or more recommended tasks of the plurality of tasks that correspond with the aspect of the user profile (The matching program 302 then analyzes the user-provided request, using multiple criteria for determining a potential best-fit, including but not limited to the following: 1) Accumulate the tasks into categories based on the specialties. 2) Identify the geography. 3) Search for contractors in the geography that perform services in the task categories. Based on these criteria, the program sends the opportunity with timeslots to contractors and waits a preselected time period for responses. Contractors who are available for a time slot respond (303). The preselected time period is based on history of responses from contractors and number of responses received. For each time slot: a) for each contractor: calculate a score based on the rating of the contractor for each service task, the contractor pricing, the percentage of the total services they can do based on their profile, and weighted based on the customer criteria above (304); b) choose the highest score that can complete all of the service tasks in one timeslot) (see at least paragraphs 60-66, 73-78, 81);
comparing the aspect of the user profile to one or more second aspects of each of the respective plurality of guides stored in the second database (The service order processor integrates with the service request match processor 402 by providing the pertinent Service Request data. The service request match processor or match processor compares request information to the Contractor Profile Database, intelligently matching requests to the available skill sets, geographic information, ratings history, and other data points. It then issues an Opportunity to one or more potential Contractors for their review/acceptance; (Contractor database; Contractor Profile Database)) (see at least paragraphs 60-66, 73-78, 81);
determining, based on the comparing the aspect of the user profile to one or more second aspects, one or more recommended guides of the plurality of guides that correspond with the aspect of the user profile (The service request match processor or match processor compares request information to the Contractor Profile Database, intelligently matching requests to the available skill sets, geographic information, ratings history, and other data points. It then issues an Opportunity to one or more potential Contractors for their review/acceptance) (see at least paragraphs 60-66, 79-86);
presenting a first user interface recommending at least one of the one or more recommended tasks or the one or more recommended guides (The service request match processor then analyzes contractor responses 404, and engages a decision making process for determining which of the respondents is best suited for the instant Service Request, based on both the initial static information and the dynamic Contractor information. The resulting decision prompts an interaction with the service order processor to begin the "final" Work Order generation process; The Work Order may include a variety of pictorial representations of the parts or appliance in question, the home feature or fitment in question, warranty documents, repair history, or any graphical instructions or graphical representation of the residence that has been captured so that the Contractor has sufficient information to effectively perform the required tasks 406) (see at least paragraphs 60-66, 79-86);
receiving user selection (The user has the option of selecting from pre-defined, individual service request items via the a la carte menu, or of selecting a Seasonal package of pre-defined service request items that have been bundled together based on suitability for a given seasonal inspection and maintenance visit by the Service Providers) of at least one of the one or more recommended tasks (The Work Order detail is then passed back to the Homeowner Dashboard 700 so that the Customer can access confirmation information on the anticipated service date and accept. The Work Order is then officially issued via the Work Order Dispatcher component 707, and ultimately the Contractor receives the final Work Order via the Contractor Dashboard component 704) (see at least paragraphs 102-117);
presenting a second user interface comprising the at least one of the one or more recommended tasks (FIG. 7 depicts the typical user interaction and data workflow through the various components of the brokering system in the preferred embodiment. The Homeowner Dashboard component 700 provides an interface for the Customer to interact with the brokering system. A customer can enter a Service Request that is then received and processed by the Service Request Receiver component 701), and including editorial content associated with implementing the at least one of the one or more tasks (Contractors indicate their availability to perform the desired work through e-mail or through the online Contractor Module and Contractor dashboard 108. All contractors that have signaled their availability are included in the program's second process which selects the available contractor that can complete all or most of the homeowner's selected tasks based on priority variables from the provider of the system/method and/or the resident; Once the contractor completes the initial Service Request visit, the Work Order completion page is filled out with a Complete or Incomplete status for each task included on the original Work Order 109. Additional work performed at the request of the resident may also be added to the Work Order; the home profile database provides a query and reporting function that is available through the Homeowner Dashboard, along with viewing and administration controls via the Staff Dashboard. The customer can retrieve the home profile information in the form of various historical reports and status queries (Home Health Reports) that are viewed online, edited, or printed for offline storage; All contractors that have signaled their availability are included in the program's second process which selects the available contractor that can complete all or most of the homeowner's selected tasks based on priority variables from the provider of the system/method and/or the resident. The system may select more than one available qualified contractor 1) if the Service Request includes tasks that require different technical expertise) (see at least paragraphs 60-66, 73-78, 81) (see at least paragraphs 60-66, 102-117);
receiving user selection of at least one of the one or more recommended guides (The Service Request Receiver processes and passes along the Service Request information to the service request match processor 702, where the request is analyzed and intelligently compared with the Contractor Profile information, resulting in a short list of potential contractors who are best suited to the Service Request at hand) (see at least paragraphs 102-117);
presenting a third user interface comprising the at least one of the one or more recommended guides (The Work Order detail is then passed back to the Homeowner Dashboard 700 so that the Customer can access confirmation information on the anticipated service date and accept. The Work Order is then officially issued via the Work Order Dispatcher component 707, and ultimately the Contractor receives the final Work Order via the Contractor Dashboard component 704) and including editorial content associated with implementing the at least one of the one or more tasks (Contractors indicate their availability to perform the desired work through e-mail or through the online Contractor Module and Contractor dashboard 108. All contractors that have signaled their availability are included in the program's second process which selects the available contractor that can complete all or most of the homeowner's selected tasks based on priority variables from the provider of the system/method and/or the resident; Once the contractor completes the initial Service Request visit, the Work Order completion page is filled out with a Complete or Incomplete status for each task included on the original Work Order 109. Additional work performed at the request of the resident may also be added to the Work Order; the home profile database provides a query and reporting function that is available through the Homeowner Dashboard, along with viewing and administration controls via the Staff Dashboard. The customer can retrieve the home profile information in the form of various historical reports and status queries (Home Health Reports) that are viewed online, edited, or printed for offline storage; All contractors that have signaled their availability are included in the program's second process which selects the available contractor that can complete all or most of the homeowner's selected tasks based on priority variables from the provider of the system/method and/or the resident. The system may select more than one available qualified contractor 1) if the Service Request includes tasks that require different technical expertise) (see at least paragraphs 60-66, 73-78, 81) (see at least paragraphs 60-66, 102-117).
With regard to Claims 2, 18, Gallagher teaches wherein the third user interface comprises an activator for connecting users with entities providing services associated with the at least one of the one or more recommended tasks, and wherein the method further comprises: receiving user selection enabling the activator; and based on said enabling the activator, launching a matching platform associated with the entities (matching program) (see at least paragraphs 102-117).
With regard to Claims 3, 19, Gallagher teaches wherein the aspect of the user profile is shared with the entities (see at least paragraph 70).
With regard to Claim 4, Gallagher teaches: enabling, via the matching platform, communications between a user and at least one of the entities (see at least paragraphs 29-35, 131; Claim 1).
With regard to Claim 5, Gallagher teaches: presenting a fourth user interface enabling presentation of a group of entities of the entities that have performed prior tasks and contact information for each entity of the group of entities (see at least paragraphs 35, 90).
With regard to Claim 6, Gallagher teaches: receiving user selection enabling the activator; and based on said enabling the activator, presenting a fourth user interface presenting a plan for completing the at least one of the one or more recommended tasks (see at least paragraphs 29-35).
With regard to Claim 7, Gallagher teaches wherein the plan is generated based on adding the at least one of the one or more tasks to a temporal based structure in which the at least one of the one or more tasks is associated with specified frequency of occurrence (see at least paragraph 32).
With regard to Claim 8, Gallagher teaches wherein the plan is presented in a format selected from the group consisting of a list format, a calendar format, and a combined list-calendar format (see at least paragraphs 73, 86).
With regard to Claim 9, Gallagher teaches: based on user input, creating sub-reminders associated with the at least one of the one or more recommended tasks such that the at least one of the one or more tasks includes multiple steps to be performed over time (see at least paragraphs 31-33).
With regard to Claim 10, Gallagher teaches: tracking progress associated with implementation of the plan for completing the at least one of the one or more tasks (see at least paragraphs 90, 127).
With regard to Claim 11, Gallagher teaches: enabling, via the fourth interface, multiple parties to collaborate with respect to implementation of the plan (see at least paragraph 31).
With regard to Claim 12, Gallagher teaches: receiving data describing areas or structures associated with performing the at least one of the one or more recommended tasks; and adding the data to the plan (see at least paragraphs 60-66).
With regard to Claim 13, Gallagher teaches wherein the data comprises an inspection report describing a structure or property associated with the at least one of the one or more recommended tasks (see at least paragraphs 36-37; 60-66).
With regard to Claim 14, Gallagher teaches wherein the data comprises a photograph, a video, an augmented reality structure, or a 3D reconstruction describing a structure or property associated with the at least one of the one or more recommended tasks (see at least paragraphs 45, 60-66).
With regard to Claim 15, Gallagher teaches: generating indicators associated with a projected timeframe for completion of the plan (see at least paragraphs 127, 129; FIG. 17);
providing the indicators to a user implementing the plan (see at least paragraphs 127, 129; FIG. 17).
With regard to Claim 17, Gallagher teaches: applying a reward to a user for completing the at least one of the one or more tasks (see at least paragraph 42).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Udell (US 2019/0057466)
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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS L MANSFIELD whose telephone number is (571)270-1904. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thurs, alt. Fri. (9-6).
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, Patricia Munson can be reached at (571) 270-5396. 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.
THOMAS L. MANSFIELD
Examiner
Art Unit 3623
/THOMAS L MANSFIELD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights