generic steps of a claim that are required to make the method complete

Question

a computer method for profile matching, comprising:

a) storing a plurality of profiles in a database;

b) receiving a request for matching;

c) determining potential matches from the plurality of profiles;

d) novel step 1;

e) novel step 2;

...and;

z) novel step n

---

In the software method claim above, steps (a) to (c) are generic for every dating app, and thus must be recited for the method to be complete.

These steps have been done in various ways and there is no doubt that they can be done.

Those steps are equivalent to the "computer" in how generic they are.

The claim does not need to claim any specific computer.

Steps (d) to (z) are what make this method claim novel.

Question:

1. Just like the claim does not need to be specific about the type of computer used, why must the claim be specific regarding any of steps (a) to (c)?
2. Specifically, why does the claim need to specify any specific algorithms for step (c), if this is indeed required? If I do specify a specific algorithm for step (c), then competitors would be able to work around it by using another algorithm. But that doesn't sound reasonable, as the novelty of my invention lies in step (d) to (z).

Answer 1

Just like the claim does not need to be specific about the type of computer used, why must the claim be specific regarding any of steps (a) to (c)?

It is a special rule that has no analog in other patent fields. In MPF, the "corresponding structure" for a recited function is the computer plus the algorithm that it runs, not just the function itself and/or the computer itself. IIRC, cases where non-MPF functional claims have been upheld exist but are extremely rare. (The system is supposed to be fair but don't expect to get perfectly analogous treatment as Apple does when your case goes up for appeal.)

But that doesn't sound reasonable, as the novelty of my invention lies in step (e) to (z).

In computer arts, one cannot engage in purely functional claiming, even if it's not the point of novelty of the claim.

However there are some possible cheat codes. For example, the claim can take as an input the required potential matches, and perform further processing on them. Then it doesn't matter how they are derived.