DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Claims
This action is responsive to Applicant’s claims filed 11/25/2024.
Claims 1-12 are currently pending and have been examined here.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The claims are drawn to ineligible patent subject matter, because the claims are directed to a recited judicial exception to patentability (an abstract idea), without claiming something significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Claims are ineligible for patent protection if they are drawn to subject matter which is not within one of the four statutory categories, or, if the subject matter claimed does fall into one of the four statutory categories, the claims are ineligible if they recite a judicial exception, are directed to that judicial exception, and do not recite additional elements which amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 375 U.S. ___ (2014). Accordingly, claims are first analyzed to determine whether they fall into one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter. Then, if the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories, it must be determined whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). In determining whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception, the claim is first analyzed to determine whether the claim recites a judicial exception. If the claim does not recite one of these exceptions, the claim is directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. If the claim recites one of these exceptions, the claim is then analyzed to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. Claims which integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception are directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. If the claim fails to integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Finally, if the claims are directed to a judicial exception to patentability, the claims are then analyzed determine whether the claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter by reciting meaningful limitations which transform the judicial exception into something significantly more than the judicial exception itself. If they do not, the claims are not directed towards eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding independent claims 1, 5, and 9 the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (a machine, a process, and an article of manufacture, respectively.) The claimed invention of independent claims 1, 5, and 9 is directed to a judicial exception to patentability, an abstract idea. The claims include limitations which recite elements which can be properly characterized under at least one of the following groupings of subject matter recognized as abstract ideas by MPEP 2106.04(a):
Mathematical Concepts: mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity: fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, 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); and
Mental processes: concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)
Claims 1, 5, and 9, as a whole, recite the following limitations:
. . . receive customer inputs and customer requests . . . and service provider inputs . . . ; (claims 1, 5, 9; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could receive customer inputs and requests and service provider inputs; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial service coordinators would perform this step in providing coordination services for customers and providers)
obtain the customer request. . . to perform a predefined task. . . (claims 1, 5, 9; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could obtain a customer request to perform a task; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial service coordinators would perform this step in providing coordination services for customers and providers)
identify a list of service providers based on the customer request, the customer inputs, and the service provider inputs; (claims 1, 5, 9; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could identify a list of providers based on these factors; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial service coordinators would perform this step in providing coordination services for customers and providers)
transmit the list of service providers. . . (claims 1, 5, 9; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could, but for the requirement to transmit the list via a generic computer component, forward a list of providers to a user; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial service coordinators would perform this step in providing coordination services for customers and providers)
receive a selection of a service provider from the list of service providers from the customer device; (claims 1, 5, 9; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could receive a selection of a provider from a list from a consumer; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial service coordinators would perform this step in providing coordination services for customers and providers)
and transmit a notification . . . to facilitate communication between the customer associated with the customer device and the service provider associated with the service provider device. (claims 1, 5, 9; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could, but for the requirement to transmit the notification via a generic computer component, send a notification to a provider to facilitate communication between the customer and the provider; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial service coordinators would perform this step in providing coordination services for customers and providers)
The above elements, as a whole, recite a method of matching consumers and service providers and coordinating communications between the two, which comprises a certain method of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial service coordinators would perform this process in providing coordination services for customers and providers. Furthermore, as a whole, the claims recite mental processes since, but for the requirement to perform the above processes on a set of generic computer components, the entirety of the process could be performed by a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment.
Moving forward, the above recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
The added limitations do not represent an integration of the abstract idea into a practical application because:
the claims represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, and merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
the claims merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (activity which can be characterized as incidental to the primary purpose or product that is merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim). See MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or
the claims represent mere general linking of the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2016.05(h)
Beyond those limitations which recite the abstract idea, the following limitations are added:
A system to facilitate geographical and specialistic auto-locating and communication between a customer and a service provider, the system comprising: (claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
a transceiver configured to (claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
and a processor communicatively coupled with the transceiver, wherein the processor is configured to: (claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
A method to facilitate geographical and specialistic auto-locating and communication between a customer and a service provider, the method comprising: (claim 5; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
A computer-readable medium storing instructions for causing a processor to perform a method for facilitating geographical and specialistic auto-locating and communication between a customer and a service provider, the method comprising: (claim 9; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
. . . to/from a customer device. . . (claims 1, 5, 9; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
. . . to/from a provider device. . . (claims 1, 5, 9; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
The claims, as a whole, are directed to the abstract idea(s) which they recite. The claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)). Therefore, because the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea) and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claims, as a whole, are directed to the judicial exception.
Turning to the final prong of the test (Step 2B), independent claims 1, 5, and 9 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because there are no meaningful limitations which transform the exception into a patent eligible application.
As outlined above, the claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)).
Furthermore, no specific limitations are added which represent something other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Besides performing the abstract idea itself, the generic computer components only serve to perform the court-recognized well-understood computer functions of receiving or transmitting data over a network, performing repetitive calculations, electronic record keeping, and storing and retrieving information in memory. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. The specification details any combination of a generic computer system program to perform the method. Generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be routine in any computer implementation and because the Alice decision noted that generic structures that merely apply the abstract ideas are not significantly more than the abstract ideas. Therefore, independent claims 1, 5, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to ineligible subject matter.
Claims 10, 14-17, and 20-23, recite the same abstract idea as their respective independent claims.
The following additional features are added in the dependent claims:
Claims 2, 6, and 10:
wherein the list of service providers includes at least one other customer providing services as a service provider.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation merely alters the list used in the abstract idea above and therefore further recites one or more abstract ideas for the reasons outlined above.
Claims 3, 7, and 11:
wherein identifying a list of service providers is further based on a geographic location of the customer relative to geographic locations of service providers in the list of service providers.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could match the consumer and the provider based on this geographic information; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial service coordinators would perform this step in providing coordination services for customers and providers.
Claims 4, 8, and 12:
wherein the processor is further configured to generate one or more graphical user interfaces that allow selection of at least one service provider from the list of service providers.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of the use of a GUI to present the list for selection represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use.
The above limitations do not represent a practical application of the recited abstract idea. The claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)). Therefore, because the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea) and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claims are also directed to the judicial exception.
Furthermore, the added limitations do not direct the claim to significantly more than the abstract idea. No specific limitations are added which represent something other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, none of the dependent claims 10, 14-17, and 20-23, individually, or as an ordered combination, are directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Please see MPEP §2106.05(d)(II) for a discussion of elements that the Courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional, activity in particular fields.
Please see MPEP §2106 for examination guidelines regarding patent subject matter eligibility.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gehrke, Geoffrey R. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 20160247126; hereinafter "Gehrke").
As per claim 1, Gehrke teaches:
A system to facilitate geographical and specialistic auto-locating and communication between a customer and a service provider, the system comprising:
Gehrke teaches a system and method for connecting consumers seeking services with providers of services being sought, wherein the two may be matched based on geographic data and specialties of the providers. (Gehrke: paragraphs [0009, 53], abstract)
a transceiver configured to receive customer inputs and customer requests from a customer device and service provider inputs from a plurality of service provider devices;
Gehrke teaches mobile devices comprising smartphones and tablets or any other computing device used to communicate with a server, wherein the devices may be used by providers and consumers to interact with the system. (Gehrke: paragraphs [0009, 26-31], Fig. 1)
and a processor communicatively coupled with the transceiver, wherein the processor is configured to:
Gehrke teaches mobile devices comprising smartphones and tablets or any other computing device used to communicate with a server, wherein the devices may be used by providers and consumers to interact with the system. (Gehrke: paragraphs [0009, 26-31], Fig. 1) In teaching a laptop or smartphone, Gehrke teaches a processor which executes code stored in a physical memory in order to perform the functions of the system. Id.
obtain the customer request from the customer device to perform a predefined task, via the transceiver;
Gehrke teaches that a user may enter in search criteria regarding a service required by the user. (Gehrke: paragraph [0053])
identify a list of service providers based on the customer request, the customer inputs, and the service provider inputs;
Gehrke teaches that a user may enter in search criteria regarding a service required by the user, wherein the system may use the request to determine providers within a predefined radius of the user location, and may return a list of providers to the user for selection. (Gehrke: paragraphs [00017, 53-54], Fig. 3)
transmit the list of service providers to the customer device;
Gehrke teaches that a user may enter in search criteria regarding a service required by the user, wherein the system may use the request to determine providers within a predefined radius of the user location, and may return a list of providers to the user for selection. (Gehrke: paragraphs [00017, 53-54], Fig. 3)
receive a selection of a service provider from the list of service providers from the customer device;
Gehrke teaches that a user may enter in search criteria regarding a service required by the user, wherein the system may use the request to determine providers within a predefined radius of the user location, and may return a list of providers to the user for selection. (Gehrke: paragraphs [00017, 53-54], Fig. 3)
and transmit a notification to a service provider device associated with the selected service provider to facilitate communication between the customer associated with the customer device and the service provider associated with the service provider device.
Gehrke teaches that a user may enter in search criteria regarding a service required by the user, wherein the system may use the request to determine providers within a predefined radius of the user location, and may return a list of providers to the user for selection. (Gehrke: paragraphs [00017, 53-54], Fig. 3) Gehrke further teaches that the system may initiate a message or call to the selected service provider device on behalf of the user. (Gehrke: paragraphs [0055-57])
As per claim 2, Gehrke teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the list of service providers includes at least one other customer providing services as a service provider.
Gehrke teaches that the user may act as both a service provider and a customer on the system. (Gehrke: paragraph [0035])
As per claim 3, Gehrke teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein identifying a list of service providers is further based on a geographic location of the customer relative to geographic locations of service providers in the list of service providers.
Gehrke teaches that a user may enter in search criteria regarding a service required by the user, wherein the system may use the request to determine providers within a predefined radius of the user location, and may return a list of providers to the user for selection. (Gehrke: paragraphs [00017, 53-54], Fig. 3)
As per claim 4, Gehrke teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the processor is further configured to generate one or more graphical user interfaces that allow selection of at least one service provider from the list of service providers.
Gehrke teaches that a user may enter in search criteria regarding a service required by the user, wherein the system may use the request to determine providers within a predefined radius of the user location, and may return a list of providers to the user for selection. (Gehrke: paragraphs [00017, 30, 53-54], Fig. 3)
As per claim 5, Gehrke teaches the limitations of this claim which are substantially identical to those of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
A method to facilitate geographical and specialistic auto-locating and communication between a customer and a service provider, the method comprising:
Gehrke teaches a system and method for connecting consumers seeking services with providers of services being sought, wherein the two may be matched based on geographic data and specialties of the providers. (Gehrke: paragraphs [0009, 53], abstract) Gehrke teaches mobile devices comprising smartphones and tablets or any other computing device used to communicate with a server, wherein the devices may be used by providers and consumers to interact with the system. (Gehrke: paragraphs [0009, 26-31], Fig. 1) In teaching a laptop or smartphone, Gehrke teaches a processor which executes code stored in a physical memory in order to perform the functions of the system. Id.
As per claims 6-8, Gehrke teaches the limitations of these claims which are substantially identical to those of claims 2-4, and claims 6-8 are rejected for the same reasons as claims 2-4, as outlined above.
As per claim 9, Gehrke teaches the limitations of this claim which are substantially identical to those of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
A computer-readable medium storing instructions for causing a processor to perform a method for facilitating geographical and specialistic auto-locating and communication between a customer and a service provider, the method comprising:
Gehrke teaches a system and method for connecting consumers seeking services with providers of services being sought, wherein the two may be matched based on geographic data and specialties of the providers. (Gehrke: paragraphs [0009, 53], abstract) Gehrke teaches mobile devices comprising smartphones and tablets or any other computing device used to communicate with a server, wherein the devices may be used by providers and consumers to interact with the system. (Gehrke: paragraphs [0009, 26-31], Fig. 1) In teaching a laptop or smartphone, Gehrke teaches a processor which executes code stored in a physical memory in order to perform the functions of the system. Id.
As per claims 10-12, Gehrke teaches the limitations of these claims which are substantially identical to those of claims 2-4, and claims 10-12 are rejected for the same reasons as claims 2-4, as outlined above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMETT K WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2624. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 6 a.m. - 4:45 p.m..
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, Resha Desai can be reached at 571-270-7792. 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.
/EMMETT K. WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628