THUMBTACK, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 3, 2021

2020004953 (P.T.A.B. May. 3, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
15/594,513 05/12/2017 Xiaoyu S. Fei 8682P005 5321
130093 7590 05/03/2021
Nicholson De Vos Webster & Elliott LLP
99 Almaden Boulevard
Suite 710
San Jose, CA 95113
EXAMINER
BYRD, UCHE SOWANDE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3624
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/03/2021 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
ndwe_docketing@cardinal-ip.com
patent@ndwe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte XIAOYU S. FEI, GARIMA SINHA,
ALLISON SHAW, and TIMOTHY CARTER
_____________

Appeal 2020-004953
Application 15/594,513
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before NORMAN H. BEAMER, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judges.

PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s rejection. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies THUMBTACK, INC. as the real
party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-004953
Application 15/594,513
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The application is directed to “enabling the scheduling of a meeting
activity between a service professional and a customer.” Abstract. Claims
1–14 are pending; claims 1 and 8 are independent. Appeal Br. 26–30.
Claim 1 is reproduced below for reference (with bracketed identifiers
added):
1. A method for enabling scheduling of a meeting activity
between a service professional and a potential customer of a
service, the method comprising:
[a] receiving a request for service from a potential customer,
the request for service including a plurality of parameters;
[b] automatically parsing the request for service to identify the
plurality of parameters, wherein the plurality of parameters at
least include a category of service wanted;
[c] automatically performing a matching operation to
determine a subset of two or more service professionals from a
plurality of service professionals that is best suited to do the job;
[d] automatically transmitting the request for service to the
subset of service professionals, wherein the request includes at
least the category of service wanted;
[e] for a service professional of the subset of service
professionals, performing the following:
[f] automatically prompting the service professional to
select a quote for responding to the request;
[g] automatically selecting based upon the category of
service wanted, a set of meeting activity types;
[h] automatically prompting the service professional to
select a type of meeting activity from the set of meeting activity
types;
[i] receiving a first input indicating a type of a meeting
activity desired, wherein the meeting activity is to be performed
by the service professional and the potential customer prior to the
Appeal 2020-004953
Application 15/594,513
3
potential customer hiring the service professional to perform the
service;
[j] automatically prompting the service professional to
enter structured information associated with the meeting activity;
[k] receiving, in response to the prompting the services
professional, the structured information entered by the service
professional;
[l] automatically transmitting to the potential customer
a notification message including the selected quote and the
structured information associated with the meeting activity,
wherein the meeting activity is a next step recommended by the
service professional to be taken by both the service professional
and the potential customer in the quoting process;
[m] automatically transmitting a confirmation
notification message to the service professional indicating that
the selected quote and the structured information associated with
the meeting activity were sent to the potential customer;
[n] receiving from the potential customer a response to
the notification message including at least one of a confirmation
of the meeting activity and updated information for the meeting
activity; and
[o] automatically transmitting a message to the service
professional including at least one of the confirmation for the
meeting activity and the updated information for the meeting
activity.
The Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1–14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claims
are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Final Act. 3.
Claims 1–14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Mori (US 8,620,712 B1; Dec. 31, 2013), Ford (US
2004/0059618 A1; Mar. 25, 2004), and Phillips (US 2014/0180715 A1; June
26, 2014). Final Act. 7.
Appeal 2020-004953
Application 15/594,513
4
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments. Arguments Appellant could have made but chose not to make
are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Patent Eligibility
In January 2019, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
promulgated revised guidance on the application of § 101 (“Guidance”).2
The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (“MPEP”) now incorporates
this revised guidance and subsequent updates at § 2106 (9th ed. Rev.
10.2019, rev. June 2020).3
Under MPEP § 2106, we first look to whether the claim recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of
abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of
organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic
practice, or mental processes) (“Step 2A, Prong One”); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into
a practical application (“Step 2A, Prong Two”).
MPEP § 2106.04(a), (d).

2 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50
(Jan. 7, 2019) (“2019 RPSMEG”). In response to received public
comments, the USPTO issued further guidance on October 17, 2019,
clarifying the Guidance. USPTO, October 2019 Update: Subject Matter
Eligibility (the “October 2019 Update”). “All USPTO personnel are, as a
matter of internal agency management, expected to follow the guidance.” 84
Fed. Reg. at 51; see also October 2019 Update at 1.
3 All references to the MPEP are to the Ninth Edition, Revision 10.2019
(Last Revised June 2020), unless otherwise indicated.
Appeal 2020-004953
Application 15/594,513
5
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not
integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look, under
Step 2B, to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that
is not “well-understood, routine, conventional activity” in the
field; or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional
activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high
level of generality, to the judicial exception.
MPEP § 2106.05(d).
We agree with, and adopt as our own, the Examiner’s eligibility
analysis. We add the following primarily for emphasis and clarification with
respect to the Guidance.
A. Step 2A, Prong One
Claim 1 recites a “method for enabling scheduling of a meeting
activity between a service professional and a potential customer of a
service.” Pursuant to Step 2A, Prong One of the Guidance, we agree with
the Examiner that claim 1 recites a judicial exception. See Final Act. 3–5,
Ans. 4–6.
Particularly, claim 1’s steps [a]–[o] guide the scheduling process,
commencing with receipt of a request from a “potential customer” (step [a]),
the determination of the type of request and identification of appropriate
service professionals (steps [b]–[c]), transmitting the request to the
appropriate service professionals and guiding the service professionals to
determine a quote and structured meeting information (steps [d]–[k]),
confirmation transmitted to the service professional that quote and structured
meeting information were sent to the potential customer (step [m]),
culminating with receipt of a response from the potential customer and
Appeal 2020-004953
Application 15/594,513
6
confirmation transmitted to the service provider (steps [n]–[o]). The steps
replicate the actions taken by a service professional (possibly in conjunction
with a scheduler for a service professional) and a potential customer in the
ordinary course of business in “the booking and transaction of services.”
Spec. ¶ 4.
The claim steps recite “managing personal behavior or relationships
or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and
following rules or instructions).” See Ans. 5; 2019 RPSMEG, 84 Fed. Reg.
at 52. Therefore, the claim recites the abstract concept of “certain methods
of organizing human activity” (see 2019 RPSMEG, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52),
which is a “judicial exception.” Id. at 54.
Appellant’s argument that claim 1’s “limitations do not meet” the
category of “certain methods of organizing human activity” (Appeal Br. 7)
because the limitations do not recite “relationships or interactions between
people” (Appeal Br. 8), is unpersuasive, as the claim steps orchestrate the
meeting of one or more service professionals with a potential customer, as
the parties “attempt to schedule an activity related to a service to be
offered.” Spec. ¶ 4. We agree with the Examiner that these limitations
recite a judicial exception. See Final Act. 3.
B. Step 2A, Prong Two
Appellant argues the claim 1 is patent eligible pursuant to Step 2A,
Prong Two of the Guidance, as claim 1 “includes additional elements that
integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application of that alleged
abstract idea.” Appeal Br. 8. Particularly, Appellant identifies claim 1’s
steps [j], [k], [l], [m], [n], and [o] as additional elements that “are beyond the
alleged judicial exception of a certain method of organizing human activity.”
Appeal Br. 10. Appellant further argues that these additional elements,
Appeal 2020-004953
Application 15/594,513
7
when looked at alone or in combination, “integrate the alleged abstract idea
(a certain method of organizing human activity) into a practical application,”
as the elements “improve the managing and scheduling of a meeting activity
between a service professional and a potential customer.” Appeal Br. 11.
Particularly, Appellant contends that the additional elements “render[] the
process of scheduling a meeting activity for both the service professional
and the potential customer more efficient and streamlined” and “enable[] the
service professionals and customers to avoid receiving unstructured
formation spread across several messages.” Appeal Br. 12, citing Spec.
¶¶ 45, 93, 04, 78.
We are not persuaded the Examiner errs pursuant to Prong Two of
Step 2A of the Guidance. See Ans. 6–9; October Update at 12, 13.
Appellant’s arguments focus on the automation performed in several
limitations and the creation of “structured information.” Regarding the
benefits of automation, it is the individuals engaged in the prospective
meeting activities that potentially act more efficiently, but that in itself
provides no technical solution; see Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC,
921 F.3d 1084, 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“This invention makes the trader
faster and more efficient, not the computer. This is not a technical solution
to a technical problem.”).
Regarding the benefits of the creation of structured information, claim
1 does not describe (a) the structured information, or (b) a change in the
underlying or other technology, and “[i]n the absence of specific
technological means for achieving the desired results, we have described the
mere collection, analysis, and display of information as falling within the
realm of abstract ideas.” Packet Intelligence LLC v. NetScout Sys., Inc., 965
F.3d 1299, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2020). We additionally note that while claim 1
Appeal 2020-004953
Application 15/594,513
8
recites many automated steps, no type of computer hardware or software is
described as performing those steps.
We agree with the Examiner that “the claims recite mere instructions
to implement the abstract idea on a computer and uses the computer as a tool
to perform the abstract idea without reciting any improvements to a
technology, technological process or computer-related technology.” Ans. 6.
Accordingly, we determine claim 1 does not integrate the judicial exception
into a practical application. See 2019 RPSMEG, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. As the
claim recites a judicial exception and fails to integrate the exception into a
practical application, the claims are “directed to the . . . judicial exception.”
Id. at 54.
C. Step 2B
We are not persuaded the Examiner errs in determining that in claim
1, “taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of claim 1 do not
provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to ‘significantly more’
than the exception itself)” and that “[e]ven considered as an ordered
combination (as a whole), the additional elements of claim 1 do not add
anything further than when they are considered individually.” Final Act. 6.
However, we disagree with the Examiner’s finding that
“representative claim 1 does recite additional elements [such as an]
electronic device, [a] computer readable storage medium [, and a] graphical
user interface” (Final Act. 5), because as noted above, claim 1 includes no
hardware or software elements that might serve to provide an inventive
concept.
Appellant argues that claim 1’s steps [j], [k], [l], [m], [n], and [o] each
are “not-well understood, routine, or conventional” because “conventional
Appeal 2020-004953
Application 15/594,513
9
solutions” do not perform each step. Appeal Br. 16–18. For example,
Appellant argues that
[t]he limitation “automatically prompting the service
professional to enter structured information associated with the
meeting activity” is not well-understood, routine, or
conventional because conventional solutions do not
automatically prompt the service professional to enter
structured information associated with a meeting activity. For
instance, as described in the specification, in conventional
online marketplaces, when a service professional and a
customer attempt to schedule a meeting activity related to a
service to be offered, they need to exchange several messages
in order to obtain necessary information about the activity,
which results in each one of the customer and the service
professional obtaining an unstructured set of information. See
Specification, paragraph [0004].

Appeal Br. 16–17.
Appellant’s arguments focus on limitations reciting the judicial
exception, as discussed above; however, limitations reciting a judicial
exception cannot supply an inventive concept. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72–73
(requiring “a process that focuses upon the use of a natural law also
contain other elements or a combination of elements, sometimes referred to
as an ‘inventive concept,’ sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice
amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the natural law itself”
(emphasis added)); BSG Tech. LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281,
1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“It has been clear since Alice that a claimed
invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply
the inventive concept that renders the invention ‘significantly more’ than
that ineligible concept.”)
Appeal 2020-004953
Application 15/594,513
10
Thus, we conclude the elements of independent claim 1, individually
and as an ordered combination, do not provide significantly more than the
recited judicial exception.
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that independent claim 1 is
patent ineligible, as well as independent claim 8, and all claims dependent
therefrom. See Appeal Br. 19.
Obviousness
Appellant argues that
claim 1 specifies that the “meeting activity is a next step
recommended by the service professional to be taken by both
the service professional and the potential customer in the
quoting process.” As opposed to Phillips, where the question is
asked by the customer, the meeting activity of claim 1 is
recommended by the service professional.

Appeal Br. 23 (emphasis in original). Appellant contends that “the cited
‘question’ in Phillips is different from ‘a meeting activity’ as required by the
claim. In Phillips the cited ‘question’ is not a meeting activity” but rather is
“an asynchronous ‘yes or no’ question that is electronically transmitted to
the professional that allows the professional to respond, asynchronously,
with ‘yes’ or ‘no’ without a meeting activity with the customer.” Appeal Br.
22, citing Phillips Fig. 6, ¶¶ 82–88.
We agree. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Phillips “describes
potential customers providing [a] question to a service provider before
booking the service provider, the Examiner is interpreting this as disclosing
a virtual meeting before hiring a professional” in which “[t]his interaction is
a meeting activity PRIOR to the customer and service professional going
into business together.” Ans. 14, citing Phillips ¶ 85 (emphasis in original).
Appeal 2020-004953
Application 15/594,513
11
However, in Phillips, the question posed by the customer using the
“Send A Free Note” option (Phillips ¶ 85) can only be replied with a “yes”
or a “no” by the professional, and is used “to assist the client in determining
if the professional is the appropriate professional for consulting with the
client regarding the client’s problems.” Phillips ¶ 90. The example question
posed by the potential customer in Phillips is “Are you able to help me
determine if I need surgery on my eyes?” Phillips ¶ 90; see also Fig. 8.
Questions of this type do not result in the claimed “next step
recommended by the service professional to be taken by both the service
professional and the potential customer in the quoting process,” as this type
of question concerns initial qualifications and is a prerequisite to any quoting
process, as a prospective customer would not seek a quote from an
unqualified professional. See, for example, Phillips Fig. 8 (“this question
allows a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ response only. It is only to assess whether this is an
appropriate doctor to speak with for your condition, not to get medical
advice via email”).
Additionally, Philip’s “Send A Free Note” option resembles Mori’s
“professional information” (Mori 4:54–55) regarding “if the professional(s)
[] is qualified to provide” (Mori 4:57) the services sought, such as “tax
related services” (Mori 4:58), in distinction to Mori’s “meeting information”
(Mori 5:9–10) applied in the rejection. See Final Act. 9. We agree with
Appellant that the combination of Mori, Ford, and Phillips fails to teach or
suggest the claimed “meeting activity.”
Accordingly, we are constrained by the record to reverse the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 1, as well as
independent claim 8 commensurate in scope, and all dependent claims.

Appeal 2020-004953
Application 15/594,513
12
DECISION SUMMARY

The Examiner’s decision is affirmed because we have affirmed at
least one ground of rejection with respect to each claim on appeal. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(a)(1).
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1–14 101 Eligibility 1–14
1–14 103 Mori, Ford,
Phillips
1–14
OVERALL
OUTCOME
1–14