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
Status of Claims
This First Office action is in reply to the application filed on 23 October 2024.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Inventorship
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the Examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicants are advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the Examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
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:
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 do not recite any computer architecture components to support the claim limitations. 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. The claims recite 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;
comparing the aspect of the user profile to one or more first aspects of the plurality of tasks;
determining, based on the comparing the aspect of the user profile to one or more first aspects of the plurality of tasks, one or more 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 of the plurality of guides, one or more 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 tasks or the one or more guides;
receiving user selection of at least one of the one or more tasks;
presenting a second user interface comprising the at least one of the one or more tasks;
receiving user selection of at least one of the one or more guides; and presenting a third user interface comprising the at least one of the one or more 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 claim 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. 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) (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) of the 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) (see at least paragraphs 60, 66, 73-78, 81);
determining, based on the comparing the aspect of the user profile to one or more first aspects of the plurality of tasks, one or more 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 the plurality of guides (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) (see at least paragraph 81);
determining, based on the comparing the aspect of the user profile to one or more second aspects of the plurality of guides, one or more 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 79-86);
presenting a first user interface recommending at least one of the one or more tasks or the one or more 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 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 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 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) (see at least paragraphs 102-117);
receiving user selection of at least one of the one or more 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 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) (see at least paragraphs 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 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 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 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 tasks; and adding the data to the plan (see at least paragraphs 61-66).
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 tasks (see at least paragraphs 36-37).
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 tasks (see at least paragraphs 45, 65).
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:
Bi et al. (US 2024/0394629)
Itaya et al. (US 2025/0390813)
Jiang (CN 113283517 A)
Ghosh et al. (US 2021/0150486)
Straub, Ad, and Henk‐Jan van Mossel. "Contractor selection for performance‐based maintenance partnerships." International Journal of Strategic Property Management 11.2 (2007): 65-76.
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