DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. The following is a NON-FINAL Office action upon examination of application number 17/843,492 filed on 06/17/2022, in response to Applicant’s Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed on November 12, 2025. Claims 1 and 3-20 are pending in the application and have been examined on the merits discussed below.
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
3. Application 17/843,492 filed 06/17/2022 claims Priority from Provisional Application 63/212,951, filed 06/21/2021.
Response to Amendment
4. In the response filed November 12, 2025, Applicant amended claims 1, 11, 17, and 18, and canceled claim 2. New claims 19 and 20 were presented for examination.
5. Applicant's amendments to the claims are hereby acknowledged. The amendments are sufficient to overcome the previously issued claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a); accordingly, this rejection has been withdrawn.
6. Applicant's amendments to the claims are hereby acknowledged. The amendments are not sufficient to overcome the previously issued claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101; accordingly, this rejection has been maintained.
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant's arguments filed November 12, 2025, have been fully considered.
8. Applicant submits “even if the claims recite an abstract idea (which is not conceded), the claims are not directed to an abstract idea because any abstract ideas recited the claims are integrated into a practical application.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 11/12/2025, page 10]
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under Step 2A Prong Two of the eligibility inquiry, any additional elements are evaluated individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, with consideration of the following exemplary considerations that may be indicative of a practical application: an additional element that reflects an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, applying the exception with a particular machine, applying the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, effecting a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and applying or using the judicial exception some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
In this instance, the additional elements recited in exemplary claim 1 include: a social network, a first client device, a first graphical user interface, one or more other client devices, a network, a second graphical user interface of the one or more other client devices, and a direct messaging system in an application. These elements have been considered individually and in combination, however these computing elements amount to using a generic computer programmed with computer-executable instructions/software to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application, as noted in MPEP 2106. See also MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h). Furthermore, these additional elements fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Instead, the specified device amounts to using generic computing devices as tools to implement the abstract idea, which does not amount to a technological improvement or otherwise indicate a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
It is not clear how the claimed limitations provide an actual improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment evident in the claims. The Applicant’s claims do not adequately explain how the additional elements of the claim integrate to add any meaningful limits on the abstract idea. At the most, the claimed invention seems to provide improvement beneficial to the end users. The focus of the claims of the instant application is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools. Even reviewing the Applicant’s Specification (which describes the hardware and software), it is not made clear how the hardware and software result in an improvement to the technology or hardware itself, etc. The claimed invention does not provide an improvement to another technology/technical field or the functioning of the computer itself. Applicant's invention is directed towards providing business solutions to business problems rather than providing technical solutions to technical problems; thus, the claimed invention does not provide an improvement to another technology/technical field or the functioning of the computer itself. The Examiner further points out there is no actual improvement to another technology or technical field, no improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, and no meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment evident in the claims.
Lastly, it is noted that Applicant’s claims are devoid of any discernible change, transformation, or improvement to a computer (software or hardware) or any existing technology. Applicant has not shown that any specific technological improvement is achieved within the scope of the claims. It bears emphasis that no graphical user interface, client device, or technological elements are modified or improved upon in any discernible manner. Instead, the result produced by the claims is simply information including the requested input, which is not a technical result or improvement thereof. For the reasons above, this argument is found unpersuasive.
9. Applicant submits “Applicant respectfully submits that amended claim 1 reflects a technical solution to the technical problem of data scarcity in appropriately connecting users on a social network platform. In particular, social network platforms can lack the information needed to identify successful potential connections or matches for a first individual, and claim 1 recites a technical solution to this problem, as outlined below. Specifically, Applicant submits that, by receiving the requested input in accordance with any of the options and providing the requested input to both the requesting user and the one or more other individuals, amended claim 1: (i) facilitates cooperative decision-making and review of a profile among the first individual and the one or more other individuals in order to assist the first individual with a potential match decision, and (11) enables the collection of more complete and accurate data to inform future connections or matches. As expressly described in the specification, these features “improve the ability of dating and social network systems to appropriately connect users”: “By facilitating cooperative review, the system 100 enhances the user experience by, for example, providing the requesting user with relevant feedback from an outside perspective, and enabling reviewing users to interact with the system (e.g., vote) on behalf of the user. These features also improve the ability of dating and social network systems to appropriately connect users.” Specification, page 5, lines 24-28.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 11/12/2025, page 11]
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to Applicant’s argument that “amended claim 1 reflects a technical solution to the technical problem of data scarcity in appropriately connecting users on a social network platform,” the Examiner notes that the alleged “technical problem” of connecting users on a social network is a business and social matchmaking problem, not a technological one, and the claims are still directed to an abstract idea. The claim limitations related to identifying potential matches, receiving input regarding the potential match, enabling communication among users, and automatically connecting the first individual with the second individual, merely use generic computer components to perform conventional functions such as data transmission. Statement in the Specification that the system “improves” user matching reflect intended social outcomes, not improvement to computer functionality, and therefore do not show a technical improvement. Accordingly, this argument is found unpersuasive.
10. Applicant submits “In more detail, by facilitating cooperative decision-making and improving the ability of social network systems to appropriately connect users, the foregoing features of claim 1 recite a patentable improvement to social network technologies and the functioning of computers that provide such technologies through the mitigation of data scarcity. Indeed, unlike systems that only allow for input on a potential match at most from one reviewing user to the requesting user (or do not allow for input at all), amended claim 1 provides the input on the potential match to both the requesting user and one or more other reviewing users to facilitate cooperative review of the potential match among multiple individuals simultaneously and to collect more robust data with respect to potential matches. Claim 1 as amended reflects these improvements. For example, claim 1 recites “enabling network communication among the first individual and the one or more other individuals for providing the requested input regarding the potential match with the second individual directly to the first individual and the one or more other individuals” and “providing the requested input to the first individual by way of the first graphical user interface and to the one or more other individuals by way of the second graphical user interface from the one or more other client devices in real-time by way of the network.” This cooperative review enables a social network system to collect more complete and accurate data (e.g., input) regarding the potential match, which improves the system’s ability to more appropriately connect users. As disclosed in FIGS. 6A-6C (pertinent part of FIG. 6A reproduced below), this data (e.g., input) can inform the execution of the matching engine and selection engine since “the database 146 in communication [with] the server 104 [] stores information for use by the social network application 122, the matching engine 142, and/or the selection engine 144, such as user profile information, match information, message information, or other information”: Applicant respectfully submits that this is a technical solution to the technical problem of data scarcity in appropriately connecting users on a social network platform by facilitating the collection of more accurate and complete data through collective decision making. Accordingly, because claim 1 reflects the technological improvements disclosed in the Specification, Applicant respectfully submits that amended claim 1, as a whole, integrates the alleged abstract idea into practical application and amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 11/12/2025, pages 12-13]
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response, the Examiner notes that the claim limitations related to enabling network communication among multiple users and receiving input regarding potential matches describe social interactions and business processes, not a technological improvement. The recited network communication and real-time input transmission do not improve the functioning of the computer or network. While Applicant emphasizes “cooperative review” and “more complete and accurate data,” these reflect intended social outcomes, not technical solutions. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical applicant and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, this argument is found unpersuasive.
11. Applicant submits “that the cited portion of Makani does not disclose or suggest “providing the requested input to the first individual by way of the first graphical user interface and to the one or more other individuals by way of the second graphical user interface from the one or more other client devices in real-time by way of the network”.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 11/12/2025, page 14]
In response to Applicant’s argument that “the cited portion of Makani does not disclose or suggest “providing the requested input to the first individual by way of the first graphical user interface and to the one or more other individuals by way of the second graphical user interface from the one or more other client devices in real-time by way of the network,” the Examiner notes the limitation being argued by Applicant as being newly amended to the claims in the response filed 11/12/2025, which has been addressed in the updated rejection below. Applicant’s argument has been considered, but it pertains to amendments to independent claim 1 that are believed to be addressed via the new ground of rejection under §103 set forth in the instant Office action, which incorporates a new reference to address the amended limitations in claim 1 and supports a conclusion of obviousness of the amended claims.
12. Applicant’s remaining arguments either logically depend from the above-rejected arguments, in which case they too are unpersuasive for the reasons set forth above, or they are directed to features which have been newly added via amendment. Therefore, this is now the Examiner's first opportunity to consider these limitations and as such any arguments regarding these limitations would be inappropriate since they have not yet been examined. A full rejection of these limitations will be presented later in this Office Action.
Claim Objections
13. Claims 1, 17, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities: manner of making amendments.
Claims 1, 17, and 18 are objected to because the amendment were not made in compliance with the requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 1.121. Specifically, the amendment deletes claim language without providing the required strike-through markings, resulting in an improper manner of making the amendment. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strikethrough cannot be easily perceived. The portions of the corresponding amendments are reproduced below for Applicant’s convenience. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 was amended to remove the word “comprising”. However, the word was removed from the claim without being presented with strikethroughs. The amended claim limitation should read “wherein the requested input comprises a plurality of data types, each data type associated with an option in the plurality of options.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1, dated 04/15/2025
PNG
media_image1.png
194
667
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 1, dated 11/12/2025
PNG
media_image2.png
190
643
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The word “between” and the phrase “among the first individual and the one or more other individuals for providing the requested input regarding the potential match with the second individual directly to the first individual and the one or more other individuals.”
Claim 1, dated 04/15/2025
PNG
media_image3.png
138
643
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 1, dated 11/12/2025
PNG
media_image4.png
136
678
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Similar improper amendments (i.e., the deletion of claim language without the required strike-through markings) also appear in independent claims 17 and 18; accordingly, appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
14. 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.
15. Claims 1 and 3-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
16. Claims 1 and 3-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance with MPEP 2106.
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is first noted that the method (claims 1, 3-16, and 19-20), system (claim 17), and the non-transitory computer-readable medium (claim 18) are directed to at least one potentially eligible category of subject matter (i.e., process, machine, and article of manufacture, respectively). Thus, Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility test for claims 1 and 3-20 is satisfied.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One, it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea that falls into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” abstract idea set forth in MPEP 2106 because the claims recite steps for managing individual matching activities, which encompasses activity for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions (e.g., following rules or instructions), and also recites limitations that can be performed in the human mind (via observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion) thus falling within the “Mental Processes” abstract idea grouping. With respect to independent claim 1, the limitations reciting the abstract idea are indicated in bold below: identifying a potential match between a first individual and a second individual based on one or more interests of the first individual, wherein each of the first individual and the second individual are members of a social network; receiving, from a first client device associated with the first individual and on a first graphical user interface, a request for input regarding the potential match with the second individual; in response to the request: identifying one or more other individuals for providing the requested input to the first individual regarding the potential match with the second individual; supplying, to one or more other client devices associated with the respective one or more other individuals and over a network, data for display in a second graphical user interface of the one or more other client devices, the data including profile information for the second individual and a plurality of options configured to provide the requested input directly to the first graphical interface regarding the potential match with the second individual, wherein the requested input comprises a plurality of data types, each data type associated with an option in the plurality of options; based on a selection of a first option of the plurality of the options by the one or more other individuals, enabling network communication among the first individual and the one or more other individuals for providing the requested input regarding the potential match with the second individual directly to the first individual and the one or more other individuals, wherein enabling the network communication comprises: receiving, over the network, the requested input by way of the second graphical user interface; providing the requested input to the first individual by way of the first graphical user interface and to the one or more other individuals by way of the second graphical user interface from the one or more other client devices in real-time by way of the network; and in response to the requested input satisfying one or more criteria, automatically connecting the first individual with the second individual, wherein automatically connecting comprises: establishing network communication between the first individual and the second individual via a direct messaging system in an application. These steps are organizing human activity by managing interactions between people by following rules, or instructions, and also encompasses mental processes since the identifying may be accomplished by human judgment or evaluation, such as with the aid of pen and paper).
Therefore, because the limitations above set forth activities falling within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” and “Mental Processes” abstract idea groupings described in MPEP 2106, the additional elements recited in the claims are further evaluated, individually and in combination, under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B below. Independent claims 17 and 18 recite similar limitations as those discussed above and are therefore found to recite the same or substantially the same abstract idea as claim 1.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. With respect to independent claims 1/17/18, the additional elements are: a social network, a first client device, a first graphical user interface, one or more other client devices, a network, a second graphical user interface of the one or more other client devices, and a direct messaging system in an application (claim 1); one or more processors, memory storing instructions, a social network, a first client device, a first graphical user interface, one or more other client devices, a network, a second graphical user interface, and a direct messaging system in an application (claim 17), instructions, one or more processors, a social network, a first client device, a first graphical user interface, one or more other client devices, a network, a second graphical user interface, and a direct messaging system in an application (claim 18). These additional elements have been evaluated, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using generic computing elements or computer-executable instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h). Even if the step for receiving is not deemed part of the abstract idea, these steps are at most directed to insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). In addition, these limitations fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry, it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. With respect to independent claims 1/17/18, the additional elements are: a social network, a first client device, a first graphical user interface, one or more other client devices, a network, a second graphical user interface of the one or more other client devices, and a direct messaging system in an application (claim 1); one or more processors, memory storing instructions, a social network, a first client device, a first graphical user interface, one or more other client devices, a network, a second graphical user interface, and a direct messaging system in an application (claim 17), instructions, one or more processors, a social network, a first client device, a first graphical user interface, one or more other client devices, a network, a second graphical user interface, and a direct messaging system in an application (claim 18). These elements have been considered individually and in combination, but fail to add significantly more to the claims because they amount to using generic computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Notably, Applicant’s Specification suggests that virtually any type of computing device under the sun can be used to implement the claimed invention (Specification at paragraph [0011]: “In some implementations, each client device 102 is a mobile device (e.g., smartphone, laptop, tablet, wearable device, etc.) executing the social network application 122”). Accordingly, the generic computer involvement in performing the claim steps merely serves to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, which does not add significantly more to the claim. See, e.g., Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976. ).
Even if the step for receiving is not deemed part of the abstract idea, these steps are at most directed to insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity, which has been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional, and thus insufficient to add significantly more to the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d) - Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that, as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claims 2-16 and 19-20 recite the same abstract idea as recited in the independent claims, and when evaluated under Step 2A Prong One are found to merely recite details that serve to narrow the same abstract idea recited in the independent claims accompanied by the same generic computing elements or software as those addressed above in the discussion of the independent claims, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application or add significantly more, or other additional elements that fail to amount to a practical application or add significantly more, as noted above. In particular, dependent claims 2-16 and 19-20 recite “wherein establishing communication between the first individual and the second individual comprises: supplying, to the second individual, data for display, the data including profile information for the first individual,” “comprising: receiving an indication to connect the second individual with the first individual; and enabling communication between the first individual and the second individual in response to the indication to connect to connect the second individual with the first individual,” “wherein each of the one or more other individuals are members of the social network,” “wherein the request includes a specification of the one or more other individuals for providing the input to the first individual regarding the potential match with the second individual,” “wherein enabling communication between the first individual and the one or more other individuals comprises enabling sharing of reactions by the one or more other individuals to the potential match,” “wherein identifying the one or more other individuals for providing the input to the first individual regarding the potential match with the second individual comprises randomly selecting the one or more other individuals from a plurality of individuals, wherein each of the plurality of individuals is a member of the social network,” “wherein identifying the one or more other individuals for providing the input to the first individual regarding the potential match with the second individual comprises: accessing profile information for each of a plurality of individuals, wherein each of the plurality of individuals is a member of the social network; determining a relevance score for each of the plurality of individuals based on the profile information and the requested input; and selecting the one or more individuals for providing the input based on the relevance score,” “wherein enabling communication between the first individual and the one or more other individuals comprises enabling sharing of a vote to connect the first individual with the second individual,” “wherein the one or more other individuals include at least a third individual, a fourth individual, and a fifth individual, and further comprising: determining whether the requested input satisfies one or more criteria based on a vote from each of the third, fourth, and fifth individuals,” “wherein determining whether the requested input satisfies one or more criteria comprises determining whether the requested input satisfies one or more criteria based on a majority of the votes from the third, fourth, and fifth individuals,” “wherein determining whether the requested input satisfies one or more criteria comprises determining whether the requested input satisfies one or more criteria based on a majority of the votes from the third, fourth, and fifth individuals of a particular gender,” “comprising: selecting a leader from among the third, fourth, and fifth individuals; and determining whether the requested input satisfies one or more criteria based on the vote from the leader,” “wherein at least one of the one or more other client devices are offline when the request for input regarding the potential match with the second individual is received,” “wherein identifying the potential match between the first individual and the second individual based on the one or more interests of the first individual comprises: accessing profile information for each of a plurality of individuals, wherein each of the plurality of individuals are members of a social network; comparing the profile information for each of the plurality of individuals with the one or more interests of the first individual; and identifying the potential match between the first individual and the second individual based on the comparison,” “wherein automatically connecting the first individual with the second individual further comprises providing a notification of the match to the first individual and the second individual,” “wherein enabling communication between the first individual and the one or more other individuals comprises establishing communication between the first individual and the one or more other individuals”, however these limitations cover organizing human activity since they flow directly from the scheduling activities involving human interaction, which encompasses activity for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions (e.g., following rules or instructions), which is part of the same abstract idea as addressed in the independent claims that falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” abstract idea grouping, and also recite steps that can be accomplished mentally such as by human evaluation or judgment. Accordingly, these steps are part of the same abstract idea(s) set forth in the independent claims. The additional elements recited in the dependent claims include a direct messaging system in an application, a second client device, a first graphical user interface of the second client device (claim 3), a third client device, a fourth client device, a fifth client device (claim 11), and a direct messaging system in an application (claim 20). However, each of these elements is recited at a high level of generality and fails to yield any discernible improvement to the computer or to any technology, nor set forth any additional function or result that provided meaningful limitation beyond linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., automated/computing environment), and thus fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
For more information, see MPEP 2106.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
17. 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 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.
18. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
19. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
20. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
21. Claims 1, 3-12, 16-18, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leonard et al., Pub. No.: US 2018/0018742 A1, [hereinafter Leonard], in view of Herbst et al., Pub. No.: US 2017/0300935 A1, [hereinafter Herbst], in view of Makani et al., Pub. No.: US 2021/0224342 A1, [hereinafter Makani], in further view of Wallace et al., Pub. No.: US 2009/0094048 A1, [hereinafter Wallace].
As per claim 1, Leonard teaches a computer-implemented method (paragraph 0075) comprising:
identifying a potential match between a first individual and a second individual, wherein each of the first individual and the second individual are members of a social network (paragraph 0002, discussing that the system identifies candidates based on criteria set by the user; paragraph 0074, discussing that the matching engine identifies a match; paragraph 0075, discussing a flow diagram of a method for determining whether or not a Match should occur between a User [i.e., first individual] and a Candidate [i.e., second individual]; paragraph 0083, discussing that if the number of votes from User A's Network meets or exceeds User A's Threshold, a Match is formed on User A's side. If the Threshold is not met, the Candidate remains in User A's pool of potential Candidates for Advisors to vote on, unless the User has declined the Match);
receiving, from a first client device associated with the first individual and on a first graphical user interface, a request for input regarding the potential match with the second individual (paragraph 0062, discussing that the user interface module enables a user to interface with the candidate matching system. The user interface module receives user data from the user; paragraph 0065, discussing that the candidate matching system enables the user to select advisors to assist in matching the user to a candidate…The user interface module receives selection data from the user. The selection data indicates one or more advisors that the user wishes to assist in matching him or her to candidate people, products, or services; paragraph 0091, discussing that a request is received for advice regarding a class of objects from the user via the network interface; paragraph 0095, discussing that one or more candidate object profiles and request for advice for the user regarding one or more candidate objects is displayed to each of the advisors via a network interface; paragraph 0069, claim 1: “receiving a request for advice regarding a class of objects from the user via the network interface”; FIG. 6);
in response to the request: identifying one or more other individuals for providing the requested input to the first individual regarding the potential match with the second individual (paragraph 0065, discussing that the candidate matching system enables the user to select advisors [i.e., one or more other individuals] to assist in matching the user to a candidate. The advisors can review the user profile data and the inventory data in order to find candidates to which the user can be matched; paragraph 0066, discussing that the advisor management module stores advisor data related to the advisors selected by the user. Additionally, or alternatively, the advisor data can include data related to a list of advisors from which the user can select one or more advisors);
supplying, to one or more other client devices associated with the respective one or more other individuals and over a network, data for display in a second graphical user interface of the one or more client devices, the data including profile information for the second individual (paragraph 0002, discussing that he system provides information to the advisors regarding the candidates. The advisors then vote on the candidates; paragraph 0010, discussing that each Advisor views each Candidate that qualifies for the User's criteria and votes on whether or not it is a fit for the User; paragraph 0061, discussing that the candidate matching system includes a user interface module; paragraph 0065, discussing that the advisors can review the user profile data and the inventory data in order to find candidates to which the user can be matched. The advisors can vote for or against a match to a potential candidate…The user [i.e., first individual] can then be informed of the match and can take further action such as contacting or agreeing to contact a candidate person. For this reason, the user interface module receives selection data from the user; paragraph 0072, discussing that the matching engine analyzes the inventory data and selects candidates that meet the user's criteria. The matching engine communicates with the advisors and invites them to view the inventory data related to the candidates identified by the matching engine. The inventory data can include photographs of the candidate individuals and other characteristics of the candidate individuals [i.e., the data including profile information for the second individual]…The user interface module outputs results data to the user computing environment. The results data indicates one or more matches based on the votes of the advisors. The results data can invite the user to act on the matches, for instance by initiating communication with the matched individuals. In one embodiment, the matching engine can also communicate with the matched individuals to indicate a match has been made; paragraph 0069; paragraph 0095, discussing that one or more candidate object profiles and request for advice for the user regarding one or more candidate objects is displayed to each of the advisors via a network interface; FIG. 7, illustrating a different graphical user interface displaying data including profile information for an individual; paragraph 0074);
enabling network communication among the first individual and the one or more other individuals for providing the input to the first individual regarding the potential match with the second individual (paragraph 0070, discussing that the user computing environment can likewise include one or more personal computers, tablet computers, smart phones, smart devices, smart watches, or other types of computing devices by which a user can communicate with the advisor computing environment; paragraph 0072, discussing that the user interface module outputs results data to the user computing environment. The results data indicates one or more matches based on the votes of the advisors. The results data can invite the user to act on the matches, for instance by initiating communication with the matched individuals. In one embodiment, the matching engine can also communicate with the matched individuals to indicate a match has been made); and
in response to the requested input satisfying one or more criteria, automatically connecting the first individual with the second individual, wherein automatically connecting comprises: establishing network communication between the first individual and the second individual via a direct messaging system in an application (paragraph 0011, discussing that if a Mutual Match occurs, the User and Candidate are both notified of the Match and a line of communication is opened; paragraph 0072, discussing that the matching engine analyzes the inventory data and selects candidates that meet the user's criteria. The matching engine communicates with the advisors and invites them to view the inventory data related to the candidates identified by the matching engine. The inventory data can include photographs of the candidate individuals and other characteristics of the candidate individuals. The advisors can cast a vote for or against a match with each of the candidates. If a candidate receives enough votes to satisfy the threshold data, then a match is made. The user interface module outputs results data to the user computing environment. The results data indicates one or more matches based on the votes of the advisors. The results data can invite the user to act on the matches, for instance by initiating communication with the matched individuals; paragraph 0085, discussing that if a Mutual Match is required (e.g. in the case of dating), the system checks the Candidate's (User B's) Network to see if User B's Threshold has been met. If a Mutual Match has occurred (User A's Threshold and User B's Threshold have each been satisfied) then both Users are notified of the Match and can proceed with a subsequent action (e.g. messaging each other); paragraph 0086, discussing that user A invites Advisors A, B, and C to assist the user in being matched to another candidate individual. At 206, the user provides selection criteria indicating the type of individual or the characteristics of the individual to which the user would like to be matched. At 208 the candidate matching system determines from a list 210 of available candidates whether a candidate meets the criteria set by the user…If the candidate meets the criteria, then at 214, the advisors are invited to vote on the candidate. The advisors review the information related to the candidate and vote at 216…At 220, the votes are counted to determine if the votes satisfy the threshold vote number. If the number of votes satisfies the threshold, then at 222 it is determined whether a mutual match is required. In other words it is determined whether the advisors of the matched candidate must also determine that user A is a match for the matched candidate…If a mutual match is required, then at 226 it is determined whether a mutual match has been satisfied. For instance, at 234, user B's network of advisors votes on user A. If user B's advisors vote yes on user A at 228, then at 230 both user A and the matched candidate, user B, are notified of the match; FIG. 8, illustrating a GUI associated with the system for matching a user to one or more candidates, the GUI including send messages buttons in the application; paragraphs 0054, 0065).
While Leonard describes identifying a potential match between a first individual and a second individual based on criteria set by the user (paragraph 0002) and that the user can contact the selected advisors directly (paragraph 0066), Leonard does not explicitly teach that the identifying is based on one or more interests of the first individual; the data including a plurality of options configured to provide the requested input directly to the graphical user interface regarding the potential match with the second individual, wherein the requested input is comprises a plurality of data types, each data type associated with an option in the plurality of options; based on a selection of a first option of the plurality of options by the one or more other individuals, enabling network communication among the first individual and the one or more other individuals for providing the requested input regarding the potential match with the second individual directly to the first individual and the one or more other individuals, wherein enabling the network communication comprises: receiving, over the network, the requested input by way of the second graphical user interface; and providing the requested input to the first individual by way of the first graphical user interface and to the one or more other individuals by way of the second graphical user interface from the one or more other client devices in real-time by way of the network. Herbst in the analogous art of systems for matching users teaches:
identifying a potential match between a first individual and a second individual based on one or more interests of the first individual (paragraph 0002: “The present invention relates to an electronic dating system, and more particularly provides methods and apparatus for a user to evaluate potential pairings between users”; paragraph 0008: “The present system uses a collection of automated subsystems and associated databases that work in combination with input from one or more users to romantically match people.”; paragraph 0133, discussing that the Server Program has criteria to determine if a pairing of two daters constitutes a match, primarily based on ratings received from users, which may include: one or both of the daters, one or more of the daters' Friends, and one or more matchmakers...The Server Program may prioritize users whose actions indicate they are seriously pursuing a relationship. Some embodiments may rely less on the calculated Scores, and may consider other traits indicating compatibility, such as users with similar or complementary personality types, users with similar schedules, users with compatible conversation level, users with similar relationship goals, users with similar interests, etc.; paragraph 0156, discussing that the suggesting page 1000 may include a search feature...The user may use the search bar 1010 to search for daters who are not displayed in the scroll 1020. The user may also use the search bar 1010 to search for keywords or tags, including but not limited to interests, hobbies, location information like a city and/or zip code, an age range, job, school, nationality, and so on);
the data including a plurality of options configured to provide input regarding the potential match with the second individual (paragraph 0139, discussing that the evaluation page 700 also includes a “menu” button 740 that opens a series of other screens for the user, a “chat” button 730 that opens a communication tool, a “more” button 750 that takes the user to a menu of additional options and actions pertaining to the displayed profile or pairing, and an input mechanism 720 for the user to provide an evaluation. In this case, the input mechanism 720 is a slider bar; paragraph 0140, discussing that the evaluation page 700 also includes a profile image of another user 710 named Jennifer along with various information about that user. The fact that Jennifer's profile information and image 710 is shown here means that Jennifer, like Dominic, is a dater; paragraph 0141, discussing that when the user inputs an evaluation, the system stores the evaluation and displays another profile for the user to evaluate on behalf of the currently selected dater 715; paragraph 0144, discussing that the images of Dominic's Friends 725 below the slider bar 720 double as buttons. Tapping on one of these buttons 725 will take the user (Dominic) to a chat with that Friend, and provide the user with a means of focusing the discussion on the profile the Friend evaluated, whom the user is currently in the process of evaluating; paragraph 0148, discussing that messages are displayed in the chat window 810. Messages from the user 840 are aligned to the right. Messages from a different user 842 are aligned to the left. Messages and notifications from the system 844 appear in the center. The chat page 800 includes an image 846 that shows the user with whom the present user is engaged in chat. In some embodiments the image 846 is clickable and directs the user to a Friend page that gives a synopsis of the two Friends' history together in the application; paragraph 0149, discussing that continuing with the example from FIG. 7, the user (Dominic) is chatting with another user named Alan. Dominic and Alan are Friends. Per the example from FIG. 7, Dominic has arrived at the present chat page 800 by tapping on the Friend image indicating Alan 725 below the slider bar 720. Such an action directs Dominic to the present chat page 800. It is possible for a user to arrive at the chat page 800 by other means. The action of Dominic tapping the Friend image of Alan 725 also causes an image of Jennifer 850 to be included in the text input box 830. This assists Dominic in chatting with Alan about Jennifer; Alan can quickly reference who Jennifer is. When Dominic sends the message currently in the text box 830, tapping on the image of Jennifer 850 will link to Jennifer's profile, allowing both Alan and Dominic to take another look at her information. This ability to quickly reference and refresh information about daters allows for efficient, focused communication between Friends; paragraph 0150, discussing that FIG. 9 shows an example of a matchmaker's evaluation page 900 of a client interface of an embodiment. The evaluation page 900 is made up of a number of buttons, icons, images, and other elements. The evaluation page 900 includes a “menu” button 940 that opens a series of other screens for the user, a “chat” button 930 that opens a communication tool, a “more” button 950 that takes the user to a menu of additional options and actions, and an input mechanism 920 for the user to provide an evaluation. In this case, the input mechanism 920 is a slider bar; paragraph 0152, discussing that when the matchmaker inputs an evaluation, the system stores the evaluation and displays another pairing for the matchmaker to evaluate, or may switch to rating single profiles on behalf of a Friend; paragraph 0153, discussing that FIG. 10 shows an example of a suggesting page 1000 of a client interface of an embodiment. The suggesting page 1000 is made up of a number of buttons, icons, images, and other elements. The suggesting page 1000 includes a “menu” button 1040 that opens a series of other screens for the user, as well as a “chat” button 1030 that opens a communication tool; paragraph 0154, discussing that the suggesting page 1000 allows the user to input a preliminary evaluation (in this embodiment, a yes vote) 1020, and the profile or pairing may then be evaluated further at a later time. Profiles are displayed as tabs in a vertical scroll 1020, and include various information about the associated dater; paragraphs 0146, 0147, 0155); and
based on a selection of a first option of the plurality of options by the one or more other individuals, enabling network communication among the first individual and the one or more other individuals (paragraph 0144, discussing that the images of Dominic's Friends 725 below the slider bar 720 double as buttons. Tapping on one of these buttons 725 will take the user (Dominic) to a chat with that Friend, and provide the user with a means of focusing the discussion on the profile the Friend evaluated, whom the user is currently in the process of evaluating; paragraph 0148, discussing that messages are displayed in the chat window 810. Messages from the user 840 are aligned to the right. Messages from a different user 842 are aligned to the left. Messages and notifications from the system 844 appear in the center. The chat page 800 includes an image 846 that shows the user with whom the present user is engaged in chat. In some embodiments the image 846 is clickable and directs the user to a Friend page that gives a synopsis of the two Friends' history together in the application; paragraph 0149, discussing that continuing with the example from FIG. 7, the user (Dominic) is chatting with another user named Alan. Dominic and Alan are Friends. Per the example from FIG. 7, Dominic has arrived at the present chat page 800 by tapping on the Friend image indicating Alan 725 below the slider bar 720. Such an action directs Dominic to the present chat page 800. It is possible for a user to arrive at the chat page 800 by other means. The action of Dominic tapping the Friend image of Alan 725 also causes an image of Jennifer 850 to be included in the text input box 830. This assists Dominic in chatting with Alan about Jennifer; Alan can quickly reference who Jennifer is. When Dominic sends the message currently in the text box 830, tapping on the image of Jennifer 850 will link to Jennifer's profile, allowing both Alan and Dominic to take another look at her information. This ability to quickly reference and refresh information about daters allows for efficient, focused communication between Friends; paragraph 0150, discussing that FIG. 9 shows an example of a matchmaker's evaluation page 900 of a client interface of an embodiment. The evaluation page 900 is made up of a number of buttons, icons, images, and other elements. The evaluation page 900 includes a “menu” button 940 that opens a series of other screens for the user, a “chat” button 930 that opens a communication tool, a “more” button 950 that takes the user to a menu of additional options and actions, and an input mechanism 920 for the user to provide an evaluation. In this case, the input mechanism 920 is a slider bar; paragraph 0152, discussing that when the matchmaker inputs an evaluation, the system stores the evaluation and displays another pairing for the matchmaker to evaluate, or may switch to rating single profiles on behalf of a Friend; paragraph 0153, discussing that FIG. 10 shows an example of a suggesting page 1000 of a client interface of an embodiment. The suggesting page 1000 is made up of a number of buttons, icons, images, and other elements. The suggesting page 1000 includes a “menu” button 1040 that opens a series of other screens for the user, as well as a “chat” button 1030 that opens a communication tool; paragraph 0154, discussing that the suggesting page 1000 allows the user to input a preliminary evaluation (in this embodiment, a yes vote) 1020, and the profile or pairing may then be evaluated further at a later time. Profiles are displayed as tabs in a vertical scroll 1020, and include various information about the associated dater; paragraph 0146).
Leonard is directed to a system for matching a user to one or more candidates. Herbst relates to an electronic system to romantically match people by collecting input from third parties. Therefore, they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards solutions for matching individuals. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Leonard with Herbst because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for matching individuals, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (cooperative decision making systems and dating applications), and because modifying Leonard to include Herbst’s feature for identifying a potential match between a first individual and a second individual based on one or more interests of the first individual; the data including a plurality of options configured to provide input regarding the potential match with the second individual; and based on a selection of a first option of the plurality of options by the one or more other individuals, enabling network communication among the first individual and the one or more other individuals, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of adding a collaborative, social component to the dating process (Herbst at paragraph 0008); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
The Leonard-Herbst combination does not explicitly teach the data including a plurality of options configured to provide the requested input directly to the first graphical user interface regarding the potential match with the second individual, wherein the requested input comprises a plurality of data types, each data type associated with an option in the plurality of options; enabling network communication among the first individual and the one or more other individuals for providing the requested input regarding the potential match with the second individual directly to the first individual and the one or more other individuals, wherein enabling the network communication comprises: receiving, over the network, the requested input by way of the second graphical user interface; and providing the requested input to the first individual by way of the first graphical user interface and to the one or more other individuals by way of the second graphical user interface from the one or more other client devices in real-time by way of the network. However, Makani in the analogous art of matching systems teaches these concepts. Makani teaches:
the data including a plurality of options configured to provide the requested input directly to the first graphical user interface regarding the potential match with the second individual, wherein the requested input comprises a plurality of data types, each data type associated with an option in the plurality of options (paragraph 0003: “This disclosure contemplates a matching tool that is designed to enable both singles and those in relationships to participate in the online-matching process.”; paragraph 0028, discussing that for example, in certain embodiments, friend 110b may receive a series of recommendations for first dater 110a that includes profile 130c belonging to second dater 110c [i.e., second individual]. In response to viewing profile 130c, friend 110b may believe that second dater 110c is likely compatible with first dater 110a (e.g., friend 110b may believe that the potential exists for first dater 110a and second dater 110c to enter into a successful dating relationship offline). Accordingly, friend 110b may select profile 130c, belonging to second dater 110c, in the hopes of generating a match in the system between first dater 110a and second dater 110c….In this manner, matching tool 105 enables both dater 110a and friend 110b of dater 110a to participate in the matching process for dater 110a; paragraph 0029, discussing that friend 110b of first dater 110a may be able to suggest profiles to first dater 110a that friend 110b thinks first dater 110a should attempt to match with. For example, in response to receiving a series of recommendations for first dater 110a that includes profile 130c, belonging to second dater 110c, friend 110b may select profile 130c, thereby generating an indication to first dater 110a that friend 110b thinks that first dater 110a should select profile 130c (e.g., friend 110b thinks that first dater 110a and second dater 110c are likely compatible). In certain embodiments, the indication to first dater 110a that friend 110b thinks that first dater 110a should select profile 130c may correspond to matching tool 105 reordering the series of recommendations presented to first dater 110a, such that profile 130c is located earlier in the series of recommendations than if friend 110b had not selected profile 130. For example, matching tool 105 may reorder the series of recommendations such that profile 130c is the first profile presented to dater 110a. In some embodiments, the indication to first dater 110a that friend 110b thinks that first dater 110a should select profile 130c may correspond to an indication placed on profile 130c, as presented to first dater 110a. For example, profile 130c, as presented to first dater 110a, may include an icon or a statement such as “friend 110b thinks that you and dater 110c would be a great match,” or any similar phrase indicating that friend 110b has suggested profile 130c to first dater 110a...; paragraph 0059, discussing that while dater 110c may grant second friend 110e permissions 150e, which may include the permission to suggest profiles 130 to dater 110c, but not to select profiles 130 in an attempt to match other users 110 with dater 110c; paragraph 0093, discussing that in certain embodiments, in response to receiving selection 315b from friend 110b, recommendation engine 165 may be configured to transmit a third series of profile recommendations 320b to dater 110b that includes an indication on profile 130, chosen by friend 110b as selection 315b, indicating that friend 110b has suggested profile 130 to dater 110a. For example, recommendation engine 165 may be configured to include a statement on the suggested profile 130 such as “friend 110b thinks that the two of you would make a great match,” or any similar phrase indicating that friend 110b has suggested profile 130 to dater 110a. Where more than one friend 110b has suggested a given profile 130 to dater 110a, recommendation engine 165 may be configured to include an indication on the profile of the number of friends who have recommended the profile);
enabling network communication among the first individual and the one or more other individuals for providing the requested input regarding the potential match with the second individual directly to the first individual and the one or more other individuals (paragraph 0040, discussing that a chatting engine may be configured to facilitate communication between first dater 110a, second dater 110c, and first friend 110b who selected profile 130c, belonging to second dater 110c, on behalf of first dater 110a; paragraph 0093, discussing that in certain embodiments, in response to receiving selection 315b from friend 110b, recommendation engine 165 may be configured to transmit a third series of profile recommendations 320b to dater 110b that includes an indication on profile 130, chosen by friend 110b as selection 315b, indicating that friend 110b has suggested profile 130 to dater 110a. For example, recommendation engine 165 may be configured to include a statement on the suggested profile 130 such as “friend 110b thinks that the two of you would make a great match,” or any similar phrase indicating that friend 110b has suggested profile 130 to dater 110a. Where more than one friend 110b has suggested a given profile 130 to dater 110a, recommendation engine 165 may be configured to include an indication on the profile of the number of friends who have recommended the profile; paragraph 0126, discussing that friend 110b may select profile 130 directly from the group chat, generating either a potential match for dater 110a or a suggestion for dater 110a; paragraphs 0030, 0041),
wherein enabling the network communication comprises: receiving, over the network, the requested input by way of the second graphical user interface (paragraph 0028, discussing that for example, in certain embodiments, friend 110b may receive a series of recommendations for first dater 110a that includes profile 130c belonging to second dater 110c. In response to viewing profile 130c, friend 110b may believe that second dater 110c is likely compatible with first dater 110a (e.g., friend 110b may believe that the potential exists for first dater 110a and second dater 110c to enter into a successful dating relationship offline). Accordingly, friend 110b may select profile 130c, belonging to second dater 110c, in the hopes of generating a match in the system between first dater 110a and second dater 110c….In this manner, matching tool 105 enables both dater 110a and friend 110b of dater 110a to participate in the matching process for dater 110a; paragraph 0029, discussing that friend 110b of first dater 110a may be able to suggest profiles to first dater 110a that friend 110b thinks first dater 110a should attempt to match with. For example, in response to receiving a series of recommendations for first dater 110a that includes profile 130c, belonging to second dater 110c, friend 110b may select profile 130c, thereby generating an indication to first dater 110a that friend 110b thinks that first dater 110a should select profile 130c (e.g., friend 110b thinks that first dater 110a and second dater 110c are likely compatible). In certain embodiments, the indication to first dater 110a that friend 110b thinks that first dater 110a should select profile 130c may correspond to matching tool 105 reordering the series of recommendations presented to first dater 110a, such that profile 130c is located earlier in the series of recommendations than if friend 110b had not selected profile 130. For example, matching tool 105 may reorder the series of recommendations such that profile 130c is the first profile presented to dater 110a. In some embodiments, the indication to first dater 110a that friend 110b thinks that first dater 110a should select profile 130c may correspond to an indication placed on profile 130c, as presented to first dater 110a. For example, profile 130c, as presented to first dater 110a, may include an icon or a statement such as “friend 110b thinks that you and dater 110c would be a great match,” or any similar phrase indicating that friend 110b has suggested profile 130c to first dater 110a...; paragraph 0059, discussing that while dater 110c may grant second friend 110e permissions 150e, which may include the permission to suggest profiles 130 to dater 110c, but not to select profiles 130 in an attempt to match other users 110 with dater 110c; paragraph 0093, discussing that in certain embodiments, in response to receiving selection 315b from friend 110b, recommendation engine 165 may be configured to transmit a third series of profile recommendations 320b to dater 110b that includes an indication on profile 130, chosen by friend 110b as selection 315b, indicating that friend 110b has suggested profile 130 to dater 110a. For example, recommendation engine 165 may be configured to include a statement on the suggested profile 130 such as “friend 110b thinks that the two of you would make a great match,” or any similar phrase indicating that friend 110b has suggested profile 130 to dater 110a. Where more than one friend 110b has suggested a given profile 130 to dater 110a, recommendation engine 165 may be configured to include an indication on the profile of the number of friends who have recommended the profile); and
providing the requested input to the first individual by way of the first graphical user interface from the one or more other client devices in real-time by way of the network (paragraph 0010, discussing that an embodiment dynamically updates the profiles recommended to a user based on activity of the user as well as activity of the user's friends, acting on behalf of the user. As another example, an embodiment provides enhanced recommendations for a user by considering not only the user's preferences but also the preferences of the user's friends, acting on behalf of the user; paragraph 0028, discussing that as an example, consider dater 110a. Matching tool 105 generates recommendations of other, potentially compatible daters, and presents a series of profiles 130 belonging to the potentially compatible daters to dater 110a and/or friend 110b of dater 110a for selection therefrom. For example, in certain embodiments, friend 110b may receive a series of recommendations for first dater 110a that includes profile 130c belonging to second dater 110c. In response to viewing profile 130c, friend 110b may believe that second dater 110c is likely compatible with first dater 110a (e.g., friend 110b may believe that the potential exists for first dater 110a and second dater 110c to enter into a successful dating relationship offline). Accordingly, friend 110b may select profile 130c, belonging to second dater 110c, in the hopes of generating a match in the system between first dater 110a and second dater 110c. If second dater 110c, friend 110d of second dater 110c, and/or friend 110e of second dater 110c similarly selects profile 130a, belonging to first dater 110a, as a potential match for second dater 110c, matching tool 105 will generate a match between first dater 110a and second dater 110c, enabling communication between the two daters. In this manner, matching tool 105 enables both dater 110a and friend 110b of dater 110a to participate in the matching process for dater 110a; paragraph 0029, discussing that as another example, in certain embodiments, rather than being able to generate matches for first dater 110a, friend 110b of first dater 110a may be able to suggest profiles to first dater 110a that friend 110b thinks first dater 110a should attempt to match with. For example, in response to receiving a series of recommendations for first dater 110a that includes profile 130c, belonging to second dater 110c, friend 110b may select profile 130c, thereby generating an indication to first dater 110a that friend 110b thinks that first dater 110a should select profile 130c (e.g., friend 110b thinks that first dater 110a and second dater 110c are likely compatible). In certain embodiments, the indication to first dater 110a that friend 110b thinks that first dater 110a should select profile 130c may correspond to matching tool 105 reordering the series of recommendations presented to first dater 110a, such that profile 130c is located earlier in the series of recommendations than if friend 110b had not selected profile 130. For example, matching tool 105 may reorder the series of recommendations such that profile 130c is the first profile presented to dater 110a. In some embodiments, the indication to first dater 110a that friend 110b thinks that first dater 110a should select profile 130c may correspond to an indication placed on profile 130c, as presented to first dater 110a. For example, profile 130c, as presented to first dater 110a, may include an icon or a statement such as “friend 110b thinks that you and dater 110c would be a great match,” or any similar phrase indicating that friend 110b has suggested profile 130c to first dater 110a...; paragraph 0059, discussing that while dater 110c may grant second friend 110e permissions 150e, which may include the permission to suggest profiles 130 to dater 110c, but not to select profiles 130 in an attempt to match other users 110 with dater 110c; paragraph 0093, discussing that in certain embodiments, in response to receiving selection 315b from friend 110b, recommendation engine 165 may be configured to transmit a third series of profile recommendations 320b to dater 110b that includes an indication on profile 130, chosen by friend 110b as selection 315b, indicating that friend 110b has suggested profile 130 to dater 110a. For example, recommendation engine 165 may be configured to include a statement on the suggested profile 130 such as “friend 110b thinks that the two of you would make a great match,” or any similar phrase indicating that friend 110b has suggested profile 130 to dater 110a. Where more than one friend 110b has suggested a given profile 130 to dater 110a, recommendation engine 165 may be configured to include an indication on the profile of the number of friends who have recommended the profile).
The Leonard-Herbst combination describes features related to matching individuals. Makani describes a matching tool. Therefore, they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards solutions for matching individuals. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Leonard-Herbst combination with Makani because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for matching individuals, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (cooperative decision making systems and dating applications), and because modifying the Leonard-Herbst combination to include Makani’s features for including data including a plurality of options configured to provide the requested input directly to the first graphical user interface regarding the potential match with the second individual, wherein the requested input comprises a plurality of data types, each data type associated with an option in the plurality of options; enabling network communication among the first individual and the one or more other individuals for providing the requested input regarding the potential match with the second individual directly to the first individual and the one or more other individuals, wherein enabling the network communication comprises: receiving, over the network, the requested input by way of the second graphical user interface, and providing the requested input to the first individual by way of the first graphical user interface from the one or more other client devices in real-time by way of the network, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of providing enhanced recommendations for a user by considering not only the user's preferences but also the preferences of the user's friends, and facilitating matching between a dater and other daters (Makani at paragraphs 0010, 0065); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
The Leonard-Herbst-Makani combination does not explicitly teach providing the requested input to the one or more other individuals by way of the second graphical user interface from the one or more other client devices in real-time by way of the network. However, Wallace in the analogous art of online matching systems teaches this concept. Wallace teaches:
providing the requested input to the one or more other individuals by way of the second graphical user interface from the one or more other client devices in real-time by way of the network (paragraph 0002, discussing that the invention generally relates to the field of computerized methods of and systems for matching compatible individuals for romantic and other social, cultural, special interest and/or business purposes; paragraph 0016, discussing a system and method for facilitating an online collaborative community for individuals to meet each other with the assistance of third party intermediaries or matchmakers. The system provides the intermediaries with a variety of features to participate and collaborate in the process of identifying potentially compatible individuals and arranging for the introduction of those individuals to each other. For example, the intermediaries can provide profile information about individual participants, search for potentially compatible individuals for others, or introduce individuals to each other. The intermediaries making the introductions may be professional matchmakers, amateur matchmakers, friends of participants, or casual users; paragraph 0031, discussing that FIG. 9 shows an example of a "fix-up" page where a user may converse with friends about a potential match for the user, view the profile of the potential match, and view voting results for the potential match; paragraph 0034, discussing that FIG. 12 shows an example of a "Cast Your Vote" page in which a user may vote for one of a number of suggested potential matches for a friend; paragraph 0046, discussing that the "Cast Your Vote" area 107 is an example of a game module, which presents to the user an activity for entertainment value, such as the ability to vote for a particular recommendation from a list of potential matches for a particular individual. Upon voting, the user [i.e., the one or more other individuals] may be presented with the latest voting tally, enabling the user to see how his/her vote compares with all others who have voted on those suggestions. The user may be awarded social points for participating in such activities).
The Leonard-Herbst-Makani combination describes features related to matching individuals. Wallace relates to systems for matching compatible individuals for romantic purposes. Therefore, they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards solutions for collaborative matching systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Leonard-Herbst-Makani combination with Wallace because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for matching individuals, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (cooperative decision making systems and dating applications), and because modifying the Leonard-Herbst-Makani combination to include Wallace’s feature for providing the requested input to the one or more other individuals by way of the second graphical user interface from the one or more other client devices in real-time by way of the network, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of facilitating the collaboration of third parties in the identification of potentially compatible individuals (Wallace at paragraph 0002); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 3, the Leonard-Herbst-Makani-Wallace combination teaches the method of claim 1. Leonard further teaches wherein establishing network communication between the first individual and the second individual via a direct messaging system in an application comprises: supplying, to a second client device associated with the second individual, data for display in a first graphical user interface of the second client device, the data including profile information for the first individual (paragraph 0011, discussing that if a Mutual Match occurs, the User and Candidate [i.e., second individual] are both notified of the Match and a line of communication is opened; paragraph 0072, discussing that the matching engine communicates with the advisors and invites them to view the inventory data related to the candidates identified by the matching engine. The inventory data can include photographs of the candidate individuals and other characteristics of the candidate individuals. The advisors can cast a vote for or against a match with each of the candidates. If a candidate receives enough votes to satisfy the threshold data, then a match is made. The user interface module outputs results data to the user computing environment. The results data indicates one or more matches based on the votes of the advisors. The results data can invite the user to act on the matches, for instance by initiating communication with the matched individuals. In one embodiment, the matching engine can also communicate with the matched individuals [i.e., supplying, to a second client device associated with the second individual, data for display in a first graphical user interface of the second client device] to indicate a match has been made; paragraph 0085).
As per claim 4, the Leonard-Herbst-Makani-Wallace combination teaches the method of claim 3. Leonard further teaches comprising: receiving, from the second client device, an indication to connect the second individual with the first individual (paragraph 0085, discussing that if a Mutual Match is required (e.g., in the case of dating), the system checks the Candidate's (User B's) Network to see if User B's Threshold has been met. If a Mutual Match has occurred (User A's Threshold and User B's Threshold have each been satisfied) then both Users are notified of the Match and can proceed with a subsequent action (e.g., messaging each other)); and
enabling network communication via the direct messaging system in the application between the first individual and the second individual in response to the indication to connect the second individual with the first individual (paragraph 0085, discussing that if a Mutual Match has occurred (User A's Threshold and User B's Threshold have each been satisfied) then both Users are notified of the Match and can proceed with a subsequent action (e.g., messaging each other)); paragraph 0086, discussing that user A [i.e., first individual] invites Advisors A, B, and C to assist the user in being matched to another candidate individual. At 206, the user provides selection criteria indicating the type of individual or the characteristics of the individual to which the user would like to be matched. At 208 the candidate matching system determines from a list of available candidates whether a candidate meets the criteria set by the user…If the candidate meets the criteria, then the advisors are invited to vote on the candidate. The advisors review the information related to the candidate and vote. At 218 the user also can vote...If the number of votes satisfies the threshold, then it is determined whether a mutual match is required. In other words, it is determined whether the advisors of the matched candidate must also determine that user A is a match for the matched candidate...If a mutual match is required, then at 226 it is determined whether a mutual match has been satisfied. For instance, at 234, user B's network of advisors votes on user A. If user B's advisors vote yes on user A at 228, then at 230 both user A and the matched candidate, user B, are notified of the match).
As per claim 5, the Leonard-Herbst-Makani-Wallace combination teaches the method of claim 1. Leonard further teaches wherein each of the one or more other individuals are members of the social network (paragraph 0066, discussing that the advisor management module can contact the advisors by email, by phone, by text message, by social media applications, or in any other suitable way; paragraphs 0032-0036, discussing ways to invite advisors including Social Media (Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, SnapChat, etc.); paragraph 0083, discussing that if the number of votes from User A's Network (Advisors+User A) meets or exceeds User A's Threshold, a Match is formed on User A's side).
As per claim 6, the Leonard-Herbst-Makani-Wallace combination teaches the method of claim 1. Leonard further teaches wherein the request includes a specification of the one or more other individuals for providing the input to the first individual regarding the potential match with the second individual (paragraph 0002, discussing that the user selects a plurality of advisors; paragraph 0065, discussing that the candidate matching system enables the user to select advisors [i.e., the one or more individuals for providing input to the first individual regarding the potential match with the second individual] to assist in matching the user to a candidate; paragraph 0066, discussing that when the user selects advisors to assist in matching the user to a candidate, the advisor management module stores advisor data related to the selection. The advisor management module can contact the advisors selected by the user to inform them that the user has selected them as advisors).
As per claim 7, the Leonard-Herbst-Makani-Wallace combination teaches the method of claim 1. Although not explicitly taught by Leonard, Herbst in the analogous art of systems for matching users teaches wherein enabling network communication between the first individual and the one or more other individuals comprises enabling sharing of reactions by the one or more other individuals to the potential match (paragraph 0031, discussing that both daters and non-daters may serve in the role of evaluator. An evaluator is an entity that provides an opinion on a dater on behalf of another dater, or an opinion on the compatibility of a pair of daters being considered for a Match. In the preferred embodiment, users serve as evaluators...An evaluation is the opinion expressed by an evaluator. Examples of evaluations include written statements, numerical ratings, and opinions recorded by audio or video; paragraph 0052, discussing that after a Match is made, the system may gather feedback on the quality of the outcome. This may take the form of feedback from users, including but not limited to follow-up questions about the daters in the Match, questions about whether or not a date occurred following the match, a survey about the evaluations experience, and so on. If this occurs, the system sends a request to the client devices of users selected for feedback. The client device of each selected user prompts the user for feedback; paragraph 0105, discussing that another function of the Client Program is to collect feedback on the outcome of a Match. In the preferred embodiment, the feedback is a combination of explicit and implicit information. Explicit information takes the form of feedback surveys to the Matched dater or the dater's Friend(s). For example, a survey may ask the dater how the dater felt about the Match after meeting in person, which constitutes a measure of the Unidirectional outcome. Or, a survey may ask the dater or a Friend how the relationship progressed, which constitutes a measure of the Bidirectional outcome).
Leonard is directed to a system for matching a user to one or more candidates. Herbst relates to an electronic system to romantically match people by collecting input from third parties. Therefore, they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards solutions for matching individuals. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Leonard with Herbst because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for matching individuals, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (cooperative decision making systems and dating applications), and because modifying Leonard to include Herbst’s feature for enabling sharing of reactions by the one or other individuals to the potential match, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of adding a collaborative, social component to the dating process (Herbst at paragraph 0008); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 8, the Leonard-Herbst-Makani-Wallace combination teaches the method of claim 1. Although not explicitly taught by Leonard, Herbst in the analogous art of user matching systems teaches wherein identifying the one or more other individuals for providing the input to the first individual regarding the potential match with the second individual comprises randomly selecting the one or more individuals from a plurality of individuals, wherein each of the plurality of individuals is a member of the social network (paragraph 0010, discussing that the system selects evaluators from amongst the dater and the dater's friends, to evaluate the other dater in the pairing; paragraph 0049, discussing that the system selects evaluators from each Friend Group; paragraph 0133, discussing that the Server Program has criteria to determine if a pairing of two daters constitutes a match, primarily based on ratings received from users, which may include: one or both of the daters, one or more of the daters' Friends, and one or more matchmakers...; paragraph 0112, discussing that every time a user logs in or refreshes his/her Friend list, the system makes a call to one or more external social networking services and obtains a list of the user's associates that are also users of the present application; paragraph 0111).
Leonard is directed to a system for matching a user to one or more candidates. Herbst relates to an electronic system to romantically match people by collecting input from third parties. Therefore, they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards solutions for matching individuals. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Leonard with Herbst because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for matching individuals, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (cooperative decision making systems and dating applications), and because modifying Leonard to include Herbst’s feature for including wherein identifying the one or more other individuals for providing the input to the first individual regarding the potential match with the second individual comprises randomly selecting the one or more individuals from a plurality of individuals, wherein each of the plurality of individuals is a member of the social network, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of adding a collaborative, social component to the dating process (Herbst at paragraph 0008); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 9, the Leonard-Herbst-Makani-Wallace combination teaches the method of claim 1. Leonard further teaches wherein identifying the one or more other individuals for providing the input to the first individual regarding the potential match with the second individual comprises: accessing profile information for each of a plurality of individuals, wherein each of the plurality of individuals is a member of the social network (paragraph 0009, discussing that the users select agents (“Advisors”) to help form matches; paragraph 0065, discussing that the candidate matching system enables the user to select advisors to assist in matching the user to a candidate…the user interface module receives selection data from the user. The selection data indicates one or more advisors that the user wishes to assist in matching him or her to candidate people; paragraph 0066, discussing that the advisor management module stores advisor data related to the advisors selected by the user. Additionally, or alternatively, the advisor data can include data related to a list of advisors [i.e., profile information for each of a plurality of individuals] from which the user can select one or more advisors. When the user selects advisors to assist in matching the user to a candidate, the advisor management module stores advisor data related to the selection. The advisor management module can contact the advisors selected by the user to inform them that the user has selected them as advisors. The advisors can agree to assist the user. The advisor management module can contact the advisors by email, by phone, by text message, by social media applications, or in any other suitable way).
Leonard does not explicitly teach determining a relevance score for each of the plurality of individuals based on the profile information and the requested input; and selecting the one or more individuals for providing the input based on the relevance score. However, Herbst in the analogous art of systems for matching users teaches this concept. Herbst teaches:
determining a relevance score for each of the plurality of individuals based on the profile information and the requested input (paragraph 0060, discussing that the next occasion for the system to use Scores is in the process of selecting raters to solicit. To facilitate this task, the system may keep a prioritized list of potential pairings for each dater. In a preferred embodiment, the prioritization is determined by a function of the Bidirectional Score, including uncertainty and expected outcome. An example of a high priority pairing is one with a high score, but not quite enough certainty to warrant a Match—the system will try to get an additional rating as soon as possible to hopefully verify that the pairing is quality and deserves a Match. An example of a low priority pairing is one with a low expected outcome combined with high certainty—in that case, the pairing is unlikely to ever result in a Match, and so it does not behoove the system to waste the time of a rater. Furthermore, the system may solicit raters based on their having a high weighting in regards to the pairing. Or, the system may in some cases solicit additional raters for highly-certain scores in order to calibrate the weighting of unestablished raters); and
selecting the one or more individuals for providing the input based on the relevance score (paragraph 0060, discussing that the next occasion for the system to use Scores is in the process of selecting raters to solicit. To facilitate this task, the system may keep a prioritized list of potential pairings for each dater. In a preferred embodiment, the prioritization is determined by a function of the Bidirectional Score, including uncertainty and expected outcome. An example of a high priority pairing is one with a high score, but not quite enough certainty to warrant a Match—the system will try to get an additional rating as soon as possible to hopefully verify that the pairing is quality and deserves a Match. An example of a low priority pairing is one with a low expected outcome combined with high certainty—in that case, the pairing is unlikely to ever result in a Match, and so it does not behoove the system to waste the time of a rater. Furthermore, the system may solicit raters based on their having a high weighting in regards to the pairing. Or, the system may in some cases solicit additional raters for highly-certain scores in order to calibrate the weighting of unestablished raters).
Leonard is directed to a system for matching a user to one or more candidates. Herbst relates to an electronic system to romantically match people by collecting input from third parties. Therefore, they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards solutions for matching individuals. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Leonard with Herbst because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for matching individuals, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (cooperative decision making systems and dating applications), and because modifying Leonard to include Herbst’s features for determining a relevance score for each of the plurality of individuals based on the profile information and the requested input, and selecting the one or more individuals for providing the input based on the relevance score, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of adding a collaborative, social component to the dating process (Herbst at paragraph 0008); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 10, the Leonard-Herbst-Makani-Wallace combination teaches the method of claim 1. Leonard further teaches wherein enabling network communication between the first individual and the one or more other individuals comprises enabling sharing of a vote to connect the first individual with the scend individual received from the one or more other client devices (paragraph 0002, discussing that he system provides information to the advisors regarding the candidates. The advisors then vote on the candidates; paragraph 0010, discussing that each Advisor views each Candidate that qualifies for the User's criteria and votes on whether or not it is a fit for the User; paragraph 0072, discussing that the results data indicates one or more matches based on the votes of the advisors. The results data can invite the user to act on the matches, for instance by initiating communication with the matched individuals. In one embodiment, the matching engine can also communicate with the matched individuals to indicate a match has been made).
Examiner notes that Herbst, in addition to Leonard as cited above, also teaches: enabling sharing of a vote to connect the first individual with the scend individual received from the one or more other client devices (paragraph 0032, discussing that Friends may rate on behalf of any dater they are Friends with. Each dater has one Friend Group, defined as the Friends evaluating on behalf of that dater, and also including the dater; paragraph 0061, discussing that Dater X's Friend Q has rated Dater Y 70% on behalf of Dater X 321, paragraph 0143: “Since Jennifer is a dater, Jennifer may have Friends who may evaluate profiles on her behalf.”).
As per claim 11, the Leonard-Herbst-Makani-Wallace combination teaches the method of claim 10. Leonard further teaches wherein the one or more other individuals include at least a third individual operating a third client device, a fourth individual operating a fourth client device, and a fifth individual operating a fifth client device, and further comprising: determining whether the requested input satisfies one or more criteria based on a vote from each of the third, fourth, and fifth individuals operating the third, fourth, and fifth client devices (paragraph 0086, discussing that at 204, user A invites Advisors A, B, and C [i.e., third, fourth, and fifth individual] to assist the user in being matched to another candidate individual. At 206, the user provides selection criteria indicating the type of individual or the characteristics of the individual to which the user would like to be matched. At 208 the candidate matching system determines from a list 210 of available candidates whether a candidate meets the criteria set by the user...If the candidate meets the criteria, then at 214, the advisors are invited to vote on the candidate. The advisors review the information related to the candidate and vote at 216...; paragraph 0069, discussing that the matching engine communicates with the advisors by communicating with the advisor computing environment. The advisor computing environment can include several distinct computing environments each associated with a respective advisor. The advisor computing environment can include one or more personal computers, tablet computers, smart devices, or other types of computing devices by which the advisors can communicate with the candidate matching system and/or with the user computing environment).
As per claim 12, the Leonard-Herbst-Makani-Wallace combination teaches the method of claim 11. Leonard further teaches wherein determining whether the requested input satisfies one or more criteria comprises determining whether the requested input satisfies one or more criteria based on a majority of the votes from the third, fourth, and fifth individuals (paragraph 0010, discussing that once the Threshold of votes is met or exceeded, a match is formed on the User's side; paragraph 0027, discussing that each Advisor gets a vote to determine whether or not a Match between the User and Candidate is advisable. If the number of votes meets or exceeds the approval Threshold, a Match is formed between the User and the Candidate; paragraph 0068, discussing that the threshold number of positive advisor responses includes a majority of the plurality of advisors; paragraph 0086, discussing that at 204, user A invites Advisors A, B, and C to assist the user in being matched to another candidate individual. At 206, the user provides selection criteria indicating the type of individual or the characteristics of the individual to which the user would like to be matched. At 208 the candidate matching system determines from a list 210 of available candidates whether a candidate meets the criteria set by the user...If the candidate meets the criteria, then at 214, the advisors are invited to vote on the candidate. The advisors review the information related to the candidate and vote at 216. At 218 the user also can vote. At 220, the votes are counted to determine if the votes satisfy the threshold vote number [i.e., first individual]; paragraph 0065).
As per claim 16, the Leonard-Herbst-Makani-Wallace combination teaches the method of claim 1. Leonard further teaches wherein identifying the potential match between the first individual and the second individual comprises: accessing profile information for each of a plurality of individuals, wherein each of the plurality of individuals are members of a social network (paragraph 0063, discussing that the profile engine receives the user data from the user interface module. The profile engine generates user profile data that indicates the profile of the user, based on the user data and other data retrieved by the system; paragraph 0064, discussing that the inventory data can include data related to potential candidates to which the user could be matched. For example, the inventory data can include data related to potential people to which the user can be matched; paragraph 0065, discussing that the candidate matching system enables the user to select advisors to assist in matching the user to a candidate. The advisors can review the user profile data and the inventory data in order to find candidates to which the user can be matched; paragraph 0083, discussing that if the number of votes from User A's Network (Advisors+User A) meets or exceeds User A's Threshold, a Match is formed on User A's side; paragraph 0066).
Leonard does not explicitly teach wherein identifying the potential match between the first individual and the second individual based on the one or more interests of the first individual comprises: comparing the profile information for each of the plurality of individuals with the one or more interests of the first individual; and identifying the potential match between the first individual and the second individual based on the comparison. However, Herbst in the analogous art of systems for matching users teaches these concepts. Herbst teaches:
wherein identifying the potential match between the first individual and the second individual based on the one or more interests of the first individual (paragraph 0002: “The present invention relates to an electronic dating system, and more particularly provides methods and apparatus for a user to evaluate potential pairings between users”; paragraph 0008: “The present system uses a collection of automated subsystems and associated databases that work in combination with input from one or more users to romantically match people.”; paragraph 0133, discussing that the Server Program has criteria to determine if a pairing of two daters constitutes a match, primarily based on ratings received from users, which may include: one or both of the daters, one or more of the daters' Friends, and one or more matchmakers...The Server Program may prioritize users whose actions indicate they are seriously pursuing a relationship. Some embodiments may rely less on the calculated Scores, and may consider other traits indicating compatibility, such as users with similar or complementary personality types, users with similar schedules, users with compatible conversation level, users with similar relationship goals, users with similar interests, etc.; paragraph 0156, discussing that the suggesting page 1000 may include a search feature...The user may use the search bar 1010 to search for daters who are not displayed in the scroll 1020. The user may also use the search bar 1010 to search for keywords or tags, including but not limited to interests, hobbies, location information like a city and/or zip code, an age range, job, school, nationality, and so on) comprises:
comparing the profile information for each of the plurality of individuals with the one or more interests of the first individual (paragraph 0002: “The present invention relates to an electronic dating system, and more particularly provides methods and apparatus for a user to evaluate potential pairings between users”; paragraph 0008: “The present system uses a collection of automated subsystems and associated databases that work in combination with input from one or more users to romantically match people.”; paragraph 0133, discussing that the Server Program has criteria to determine if a pairing of two daters constitutes a match, primarily based on ratings received from users, which may include: one or both of the daters, one or more of the daters' Friends, and one or more matchmakers...The Server Program may prioritize users whose actions indicate they are seriously pursuing a relationship. Some embodiments may rely less on the calculated Scores, and may consider other traits indicating compatibility, such as users with similar or complementary personality types, users with similar schedules, users with compatible conversation level, users with similar relationship goals, users with similar interests, etc.; paragraph 0156, discussing that the suggesting page 1000 may include a search feature...The user may use the search bar 1010 to search for daters who are not displayed in the scroll 1020. The user may also use the search bar 1010 to search for keywords or tags, including but not limited to interests, hobbies, location information like a city and/or zip code, an age range, job, school, nationality, and so on); and
identifying the potential match between the first individual and the second individual based on the comparison (paragraph 0133, discussing that the Server Program has criteria to determine if a pairing of two daters constitutes a match, primarily based on ratings received from users, which may include: one or both of the daters, one or more of the daters' Friends, and one or more matchmakers...The Server Program may prioritize users whose actions indicate they are seriously pursuing a relationship. Some embodiments may rely less on the calculated Scores, and may consider other traits indicating compatibility, such as users with similar or complementary personality types, users with similar schedules, users with compatible conversation level, users with similar relationship goals, users with similar interests, etc.; paragraph 0156, discussing that the suggesting page 1000 may include a search feature...The user may use the search bar 1010 to search for daters who are not displayed in the scroll 1020. The user may also use the search bar 1010 to search for keywords or tags, including but not limited to interests, hobbies, location information like a city and/or zip code, an age range, job, school, nationality, and so on).
Leonard is directed to a system for matching a user to one or more candidates. Herbst relates to an electronic system to romantically match people by collecting input from third parties. Therefore, they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards solutions for matching individuals. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Leonard with Herbst because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for matching individuals, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (cooperative decision making systems and dating applications), and because modifying Leonard to include Herbst’s features for wherein identifying the potential match between the first individual and the second individual based on the one or more interests of the first individual comprises: comparing the profile information for each of the plurality of individuals with the one or more interests of the first individual; and identifying the potential match between the first individual and the second individual based on the comparison, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of adding a collaborative, social component to the dating process (Herbst at paragraph 0008); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 17 and 18 recite substantially similar limitations that stand rejected via the art citations and rationale applied to claim 1, as discussed above. Further, as per claim 17, the Leonard-Herbst-Makani-Wallace combination teaches a system comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing instructions (Leonard, paragraph 0070, discussing that the user computing environment can likewise include one or more personal computers, tablet computers, smart phones, smart devices, smart watches, or other types of computing devices by which a user can communicate with the candidate matching system and/or the advisor computing environment. The user computing environment can include the software application. The software application includes software associated with the candidate matching system. The software application can be provided to the user computing environment by the candidate matching system. The software application can allow the user to interface with the candidate matching system. Additionally, or alternatively, the software application can include one or more of the modules, databases, and engines shown as part of the candidate matching system and Herbst, paragraph 0075). As per claim 18, the Leonard-Herbst-Makani teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions (Leonard, paragraph 0090: “non-transitory computer readable medium”).
As per claim 19, the Leonard-Herbst-Makani-Wallace combination teaches the method of claim 1. Leonard further teaches wherein automatically connecting the first individual with the second individual further comprises providing a notification of the match to the first individual and the second individual(paragraph 0002: “If the number of votes in favor of a candidate meets a selected threshold number of votes, then the user is notified that a match has been made.”; paragraph 0011: “If a Mutual Match occurs, the User and Candidate are both notified of the Match and a line of communication is opened.”).
As per claim 20, the Leonard-Herbst-Makani-Wallace combination teaches the method of claim 1. Leonard further teaches wherein enabling network communication between the first individual and the one or more other individuals comprises establishing network communication between the first individual and the one or more other individuals via a direct messaging system in an application (paragraph 0011, discussing that if a Mutual Match occurs, the User and Candidate are both notified of the Match and a line of communication is opened; paragraph 0072, discussing that the matching engine analyzes the inventory data and selects candidates that meet the user's criteria. The matching engine communicates with the advisors and invites them to view the inventory data related to the candidates identified by the matching engine. The inventory data can include photographs of the candidate individuals and other characteristics of the candidate individuals. The advisors can cast a vote for or against a match with each of the candidates. If a candidate receives enough votes to satisfy the threshold data, then a match is made. The user interface module outputs results data to the user computing environment. The results data indicates one or more matches based on the votes of the advisors. The results data can invite the user to act on the matches, for instance by initiating communication with the matched individuals; paragraph 0085, discussing that if a Mutual Match is required (e.g. in the case of dating), the system checks the Candidate's (User B's) Network to see if User B's Threshold has been met. If a Mutual Match has occurred (User A's Threshold and User B's Threshold have each been satisfied) then both Users are notified of the Match and can proceed with a subsequent action (e.g. messaging each other); paragraph 0086, discussing that user A invites Advisors A, B, and C to assist the user in being matched to another candidate individual. At 206, the user provides selection criteria indicating the type of individual or the characteristics of the individual to which the user would like to be matched. At 208 the candidate matching system determines from a list 210 of available candidates whether a candidate meets the criteria set by the user…If the candidate meets the criteria, then at 214, the advisors are invited to vote on the candidate. The advisors review the information related to the candidate and vote at 216…At 220, the votes are counted to determine if the votes satisfy the threshold vote number. If the number of votes satisfies the threshold, then at 222 it is determined whether a mutual match is required. In other words it is determined whether the advisors of the matched candidate must also determine that user A is a match for the matched candidate…If a mutual match is required, then at 226 it is determined whether a mutual match has been satisfied. For instance, at 234, user B's network of advisors votes on user A. If user B's advisors vote yes on user A at 228, then at 230 both user A and the matched candidate, user B, are notified of the match; FIG. 8, illustrating a GUI associated with the system for matching a user to one or more candidates, the GUI including send messages buttons in the application).
22. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leonard in view of Herbst, in view of Makani, in view of Wallace, in further view of Wachtel, Pub. No.: US 2011/0283201 A1, [hereinafter Wachtel].
As per claim 13, the Leonard-Herbst-Makani-Wallace combination teaches the method of claim 11. Leonard further teaches wherein determining whether the requested input satisfies one or more criteria comprises determining whether the requested input satisfies one or more criteria based on a majority of the votes from the third, fourth, and fifth individuals (paragraph 0010, discussing that once the Threshold of votes is met or exceeded, a match is formed on the User's side; paragraph 0027, discussing that each Advisor gets a vote to determine whether or not a Match between the User and Candidate is advisable. If the number of votes meets or exceeds the approval Threshold, a Match is formed between the User and the Candidate; paragraph 0068, discussing that the threshold number of positive advisor responses includes a majority of the plurality of advisors; paragraph 0086, discussing that at 204, user A invites Advisors A, B, and C to assist the user in being matched to another candidate individual. At 206, the user provides selection criteria indicating the type of individual or the characteristics of the individual to which the user would like to be matched. At 208 the candidate matching system determines from a list 210 of available candidates whether a candidate meets the criteria set by the user...If the candidate meets the criteria, then at 214, the advisors are invited to vote on the candidate. The advisors review the information related to the candidate and vote at 216. At 218 the user also can vote. At 220, the votes are counted to determine if the votes satisfy the threshold vote number).
The Leonard-Herbst-Makani-Wallace combination does not explicitly teach that the individuals are of a particular gender. However, Wachtel in the analogous art of online matching systems teaches this concept. Wachtel teaches:
individuals of a particular gender (paragraph 0041, discussing that the matchmaker's profile is shown in FIG. 9 and is stored in Matchmaker Profile Tables 4. FIG. 10 shows a matchmaker list example. This list is shown to a client in step 10 of FIG. 2. Thus, a client that wants to date, might be shown ‘Jamie Taylor’ and ‘Sally Lamont’ as potential matchmakers, shown in FIG. 10. The client might choose ‘Jamie Taylor’ to be their matchmaker. The rating questions are ‘understands my needs’, ‘provides useful information’ and ‘meets my goals’. Statistics kept are the number of marriages 37 and total ratings 38. For example, in this figure, ‘Jamie Taylor’ has an average rating of 9 for ‘Understands my needs’ from other clients that have used Jamie Taylor as their matchmaker. We can also keep the length of marriages and compare the average to the national average. The rating questions and statistics used 34, 35, 36, 37 and 38 in this example are the same for all matchmakers, allowing for equal comparison. Thus, rating information from each client and individual marriage statistics are brought together and transformed into a set of facet ratings for one or more matchmakers. In FIG. 10, the dating client selects whether the matchmaker should have a given Degree or gender).
The Leonard-Herbst-Makani-Wallace combination describes features related to matching individuals. Wachtel relates to a system and method of matching dates on the internet. Therefore, they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards solutions for matching individuals. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Leonard-Herbst-Makani-Wallace with Wachtel because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for matching individuals, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (cooperative decision making systems and dating applications), and because modifying the Leonard-Herbst-Makani-Wallace combination to include Wachtel’s feature for including individuals of a particular gender, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of better identifying matches that will work (Wachtel at paragraph 0003); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
23. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leonard in view of Herbst, in view of Makani, in further view of Hong et al., Pub. No.: US 2019/0012601 A1, [hereinafter Hong].
As per claim 14, the Leonard-Herbst-Makani-Wallace combination teaches the method of claim 11. Although not explicitly taught by the Leonard-Herbst-Makani-Wallace combination, Hong in the analogous art of collaborative decision making systems teaches comprising: selecting a leader from among the third, fourth, and fifth individuals (paragraph 0002, discussing a user interface-based information visualization method for providing support to facilitate decision making; paragraph 0005, discussing an information visualization method, apparatus, and system for user group decision-making, that extract candidates based on each member's own preference range by filtering and visually present the candidates by matching with each group member, in order to enable a user group including a plurality of group members to make a decision; paragraph 0115, discussing that a user group for a specific event may have a leader. The leader may have the authority to finalize a decision on this event. As such, in an interface for a specific candidate, a decision-making icon may be displayed only on the leader's terminal. The server may recognize the leader of the group, and the server may control the decision-making icon to be displayed on the leader's terminal. If the leader selects the decision-making icon while the interface for presenting the decision-making icon is being displayed, the specific candidate is selected for this decision-making event and the case is closed); and
determining whether the requested input satisfies one or more criteria based on the vote from the leader (paragraph 0077, discussing that the candidate extractor extracts candidates that match selection information that is filtered by the filter over the plurality of decision criteria. The candidates may be extracted based on maps and other various data stored in the memory... The candidate extractor extracts a final candidate by analyzing a vast amount of information regarding the candidates; paragraph 0115, discussing that a user group for a specific event may have a leader. The leader may have the authority to finalize a decision on this event. As such, in an interface for a specific candidate, a decision-making icon may be displayed only on the leader's terminal. The server may recognize the leader of the group, and the server may control the decision-making icon to be displayed on the leader's terminal. If the leader selects the decision-making icon while the interface for presenting the decision-making icon is being displayed, the specific candidate is selected for this decision-making event and the case is closed).
The Leonard-Herbst-Makani-Wallace combination describes features related to matching individuals. Hong relates to an information visualization method for user group decision making. Therefore, they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards solutions for collaborative decision making. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Leonard-Herbst-Makani-Wallace combination with Hong because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for matching individuals, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (cooperative decision making systems and dating applications), and because modifying the Leonard-Herbst-Makani-Wallace combination to include Hong’s features for selecting a leader from among the third, fourth, and fifth individuals, and determining whether the requested input satisfies one or more criteria based on the vote from the leader, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of providing support to facilitate decision making (Hong at paragraph 0002); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
24. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leonard in view of Herbst, in view of Makani, in view of Wallace, in further view of Vauthey et al., Pub. No.: US 2021/0133852 A1, [hereinafter Vauthey].
As per claim 15, the Leonard-Herbst-Makani-Wallace combination teaches the method of claim 1. Although not taught by Leonard, Herbst describes wherein at least one of the one or more other client devices are online when the request for input regarding the potential match with the second individual is received (paragraph 0120, discussing that the Server Memory may contain a User Activity database, which contains data concerning each user's activity on the application. In the preferred embodiment, there is one entry per user, and the entry contains a timestamp of the user's last activity on the application. This information may be displayed on the user's profile formatted as “last online 10 minutes ago,” for example. This information may also be used to determine which users are available to solicit for ratings).
Leonard is directed to a system for matching a user to one or more candidates. Herbst relates to an electronic system to romantically match people by collecting input from third parties. Therefore, they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards solutions for matching individuals. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Leonard with Herbst because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for matching individuals, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (cooperative decision making systems and dating applications), and because modifying Leonard to include Herbst’s feature for including wherein at least one of the one or more other client devices are online when the request for input regarding the potential match with the second individual is received, would serve the motivation of adding a collaborative, social component to the dating process (Herbst at paragraph 0008); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
The Leonard-Herbst-Makani-Wallace combination does not explicitly teach wherein at least one of the one or more other client devices are offline. However, Vauthey in the analogous art of advisor systems teaches this concept. Vauthey teaches:
wherein at least one of the one or more other client devices are offline (paragraph 0078, discussing that workload optimizer may automatically notify offline advisors that new leads are available; paragraph 0133, discussing that algorithm 3200 matches offline advisors to each lead in the unclaimed lead list; paragraph 0134).
The Leonard-Herbst-Makani-Wallace combination describes features related to matching individuals. Vauthey relates to advisor interface systems and methods. Therefore, they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards solutions for collaborative decision making. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Leonard-Herbst-Makani-Wallace combination with Vauthey because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for matching individuals, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (cooperative decision making systems and dating applications), and because modifying the Leonard-Herbst-Makani-Wallace combination to include Vauthey’s feature for including wherein at least one of the one or more other client devices are offline, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of providing better matching (Vauthey at paragraph 0003); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kumar, Pub. No.: US 2014/0032434 A1 – describes a system-implemented method of determining compatibility and facilitating matching between users of the method. Further describes enabling a user to involve other individuals in the search for a partner.
Neff et al., Pub. No.: US 2017/0169120 A1 – describes a web-based tool for collaborative, social learning. Further describes that in a specific implementation, the system updates the profile of the user who made the suggestion. For each user, the system may record a rating, the number of suggestions the user made, the number of times the user's suggestion was accepted, the time of the suggestion, the suggestion content, or other information, and combinations of these. The system notifies the user who made the accepted suggestion.
West et al., Patent No.: US 6,175,833 B1 – describes a system and method for interactive live online voting with tallies for updating voting results.
Wollburg, Clara. "The History of Matchmaking and the Function of Intermediaries in the Marriage Market." Semantic Scholar (2016) – describes that in marriage and dating markets, the intermediary acquires information about who is eligible as a potential mate, determines which partners make a good match, and facilitates the process of interaction and relationship formation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARLENE GARCIA-GUERRA whose telephone number is (571) 270-3339. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30a.m.-5:00p.m. EST.
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, Brian M. Epstein can be reached on (571) 270-5389. 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.
/Darlene Garcia-Guerra/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights