DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The following is a non-final office action in response to the communication filed September 2, 2026. Claims 1-10 are currently pending and have been examined
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on September 2, 2026 has been entered.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category
(MPEP § 2106)
The claims are directed to a device, a system, and computer-readable medium.
Conclusion: The claims are directed to a statutory category: a machine and article of manufacture as defined under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding Claim 1:
Step 2A, Prong One: Judicial Exception – Abstract Idea
(MPEP § 2106.04(a))
Under Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is evaluated to determine whether it recites a judicial exception. Claim 1 recites limitations including:
receiving supply information for services and articles from a supplier and/or demand information for services and articles from a consumer;
receiving schedule information and/or specified information associated with the supplier and consumer;
performing a matching between previously received supply/demand information and newly received supply/demand information;
sending the matching result; and
using the matching result in generating a schedule for the supplier and/or consumer.
These limitations, considered in light of the claim as a whole, recite the concept of matching a supplier and consumer based on supply, demand, and scheduling information and coordinating the resulting supplier-consumer interaction.
This concept falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas, and more particularly constitutes a commercial interaction/business relation. The claimed matching facilitates the relationship between a supplier offering services or articles and a consumer seeking such services or articles by collecting the parties' respective information, comparing that information to identify a match, communicating the match, and using the match to coordinate the parties' schedules.
The limitations relating to receiving information, comparing previously received and newly received supply/demand information to determine a match, and generating a schedule based on the resulting match describe the information-processing and coordination underlying the supplier-consumer commercial interaction rather than a technological process independent of that interaction.
Accordingly, claim 1 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Integration into a Practical Application
(MPEP § 2106.04(d))
The claim further recites additional elements including a matching support device comprising one or more processors and one or more memories, supplier and consumer terminals communicably connected to the matching support device, storing information in memory, displaying a schedule preparation screen that displays and permits editing of a schedule, receiving information entered through the displayed screens, transmitting the matching result to a terminal, and implementing the matching result when generating the schedule.
The additional elements are considered both individually and in combination with the claim as a whole.
The claimed processor, memory, and terminals perform their ordinary computer functions of receiving, storing, processing, displaying, and transmitting information. The claim does not recite a particular improvement to the operation of the processor, memory, terminal, communications network, user interface, or other computer technology. Rather, these computer components provide the technological environment in which the supplier-consumer matching and scheduling process is carried out.
The schedule preparation screen likewise does not, as claimed, provide a particular technological improvement to a graphical user interface or computer functionality. The screen is recited as displaying a schedule and allowing the schedule to be edited so that supplier and/or consumer scheduling information may be obtained and used in the matching process. Thus, the screen facilitates the collection and presentation of information used in carrying out the recited supplier-consumer matching and scheduling activity.
Similarly, the limitation that the processor “uses the matching result when generating the schedule” applies the result of the abstract matching process to the related scheduling activity. The claim does not recite a particular technological mechanism by which schedule generation improves computer operation or another technology or technical field. Instead, the matching result is used for its informational content to organize the availability and interaction of the supplier and consumer.
When considered in combination, these limitations automate the collection of supplier and consumer information, comparison of that information to identify a match, communication of the match, and coordination of a schedule based on the match. The claim therefore uses computer technology as a tool for carrying out the recited commercial interaction rather than reciting a specific technological improvement in the functioning of a computer or another technology or technical field.
The additional elements therefore do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea under Step 2A.
Step 2B: Inventive Concept
(MPEP § 2106.05 and § 2106.07(a))
Under Step 2B, the additional elements are reconsidered individually and in combination to determine whether they amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The recited processor, memory, supplier terminal, and consumer terminal perform generic computer functions of receiving, storing, processing, displaying, and transmitting data. Likewise, displaying an editable schedule, receiving information entered through a user interface, storing such information, communicating information between computer devices, and generating a schedule based upon processed information represent the use of computer components to implement the underlying matching and scheduling activity.
Nothing in the claim requires a nonconventional arrangement of computer components or a particular technological implementation that adds significantly more to the abstract idea itself. Considered as an ordered combination, the limitations amount to implementing the supplier-consumer matching and scheduling process using generic computing and communication functionality. The ordered combination therefore does not transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, the claim is not directed to patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding Claim 9 and 10
Independent Claims 9 and 10 are parallel in scope to claim 1 and ineligible for similar reasons.
Regarding Claims 2-8
Dependent claims 2-8 merely set forth further embellishments to the abstract idea, and therefore do not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and are ineligible for similar reasons to claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Currently claims 1-10 are in condition for allowance. The reasons for allowance are identical to the reasons for allowance in the June 3, 2026 Notice of Allowance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHLEEN G DAVISON whose telephone number is (571)270-1355. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-4.
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, Marissa Thein can be reached at (571) 272-6764. 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.
KATHLEEN GAGE DAVISON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3688
/KATHLEEN DAVISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights