DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 5-8, 14-15, 20, 25-26, 29 and 31 are amended
Claims 12, 19 and 24 have been cancelled
Claims 32-24 have been added
Claims 2-4, 9-12, 16-18, 21-23, 27-28 and 30 are previously presented
Claims 1-12, 14-18, 20-23 and 25-34 are rejected
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 13, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not considered persuasive.
Regarding the 101 rejections, the applicant asserts the following arguments:
The applicant asserts on Page 15 of the Remarks, that for Claims 1 and 25, the limitations recited reduce “processing resource consumption and network resource consumption that would otherwise be needed for the users in the substitutional match to continue using online aspects of the social network” and that the “improvements to social network data architecture, the claims are patent-eligible”. The examiner respectfully disagrees because the claimed limitations, including amendments, recite using a general purpose computer, or its components, to implement the abstract idea as merely a tool to perform an existing process, see MPEP §2106.05(f). The examiner specifically directs the applicant to MPEP §2106.05(f)(2), which clearly states that “ "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept”. Therefore, the examiner finds the argument is not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Therefore, the examiner does not find the totality of the applicant’s arguments to be persuasive and the 101 rejection is maintained. Please see below for the complete rejections of the claims as amended.
Regarding the 102/103 rejections, the applicant asserts the following arguments:
The applicant asserts on Page 16 of the Remarks, that for Claim 1, the Paul teaching does not disclose the role-based relationship between the two users when initiating the live communication session. The examiner respectfully disagrees because the applicant is arguing against references individually rather than in combination as recited in the Non-final office action, dated May 23, 2025 (see MPEP 2145(IV). Therefore, the argument is not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Further, the applicant asserts on Pages 17 of the Remarks, that for Claim 25, Belton does not teach “substitut[ion]”, merely addition of an introduction and thus fails to describe the elements of Claim 25. The examiner respectfully disagrees because the claim limitations, including amendments, of the Claim 25 do not reference substitution and therefore the applicant is arguing limitations that are not claimed. Thus, the argument is not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Further, the applicant asserts on Page 17 of the Remarks, that for Claim 30, the replacement of the third user with the first user is not taught by Belton. The examiner respectfully disagrees because the claim limitations recite “storing data indicating a cancellation of the first relationship” which does not recite the replacement of user data and thus the applicant is arguing limitations that are not claimed. Therefore, the argument is not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Further, the applicant asserts on Page 17 of the Remarks, that for Claim 26, Belton does not teach the specific features of the claim limitations. The examiner interprets the claim limitations of the Claim 26 as storing data of a second relationship based on stage matching between the first and second relationship. Belton teaches these limitations in ¶0082 which recites storing the profile, the rights between entities. Therefore, the examiner respectfully disagrees because the Belton reference teaches the limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of storing profile information and the matching rules between entities.
Therefore, the examiner does not find the totality of the applicant’s arguments to be persuasive and the 103 rejection is maintained. Please see below for the complete rejections of the claims as amended.
In response to arguments in reference to any depending claims that have not been individually addressed, all rejections made towards these dependent claims are maintained due to a lack of reply by the applicant in regards to distinctly and specifically pointing out the supposed errors in examiner's prior office action (37 CFR 1.111). Examiner asserts that the applicant only argues that the dependent claims should be allowable because the independent claims are unobvious and patentable over the prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-12, 14-18, 20-23, and 25-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to a judicial exception, in this case the exception is an abstract idea (see MPEP 2016.03).
Independent Claims 1, 15, 20 and 25
Step 2A – Prong One:
In this case, the complete language of the claims recite an abstract idea, specifically, the invention recites a certain methods of organizing human activity. The abstract idea is to establish a first type of role-based relationship between the first user and the second user, including determining an association between a first user of a social network and a first role, which pertains to managing commercial interactions and personal relationships. This is an activity that a person who is a coach (networker) or matchmaker would perform to analyze the backgrounds or profiles of two individuals and determine if a relationship should be pursued, as specified in ¶0047-50 of the invention specification. This would include initiating a live communication session between the two roles. In the relationship between two people, each individual would have a role, thus establishing the role-based relationship.
Step 2A – Prong Two:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application according to MPEP 2106.04(d). The scope of claim limitations incorporate the following additional elements:
one of more computers, client devices, a graphical user interface (GUI), a remote server, a social network
storing, receiving and querying data
These additional elements listed above, or combination of these elements, amount to nothing more than simply state the abstract idea while adding the words ‘apply it’, MPEP 2106.05(f). The generic computer processes like storing and receiving data (reference MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)) and querying of data (reference MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)) implemented by the generic computer components recited at a high level of generality amount to nothing more than instructions to apply the abstract idea without any improvement to technology, technical field, or to the functioning of the computer itself, MPEP 2106.04(d).
Since the additional elements fail to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea.
Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983
Step 2B
At Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements are directed to an abstract idea and were found to represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer using generic computer components. The analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two is carried through to Step 2B. Under Step 2B of the patent eligibility analysis, the combination of additional elements is evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea of establishing role-based relationship between two users.
Claims 1, 15, 20 and 25 are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims –
Claims 2, 16 and 21 do not disclose any additional functional requirements. However, they do recite a mental process (evaluation and judgment), specifically a coach or matchmaker would utilize a process to evaluation and determine whether to exclude a first user from obtaining the data from a second user due to the absence of the first type of role-based relationship.
Claims 3, 17 and 22 recite the additional elements of a trained image classification machine learning model to evaluate user images, as well as identify and store labels. The trained image classification machine learning model, when considered individually or in combination amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer technology components since the specification merely recites the utilization of the trained image classification machine learning model in (¶009) of the invention specification
Claim 4 essentially recites the additional element of storing associations among user based on an object depicted in the first image. This additional element, when considered individually or in combination, amounts to nothing more than simply state the abstract idea while adding the words ‘apply it’. The generic computer processes like storing implemented by the generic computer components recited at a high level of generality amount to nothing more than instructions to apply the abstract idea without any improvement to technology, technical field, or to the functioning of the computer itself.
Claims 5 and 6 further recite the abstract idea of the match seeker and matchmaker roles, which is directed to a certain method of organizing human activity (see MPEP §2106.04(a)(2), subsection II), specifically managing personal relationships. The limitations amount to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer without significantly more.
Claim 7 essentially recites the additional elements of providing and receiving associations among user profiles on synchronized user interfaces. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are recited sufficiently broadly such that they amount to no more than generic computer components.
Claim 8 further recite the abstract idea of determining whether an image matches predetermined criteria which is directed to a mental process (see MPEP §2106.04(a)(2), subsection III), specifically observation and judgment The limitations amount to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer without significantly more.
Claim 9 essentially recites the additional element of adding the modified image to a profile page. This additional element, when considered individually or in combination, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are recited sufficiently broadly such that they amount to no more than generic computer components.
Claim 10 essentially recites the additional element of modifying an image to incorporate a product. This additional element, when considered individually or in combination, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are recited sufficiently broadly such that they amount to no more than generic computer components.
Claims 11, 18 and 23 essentially recite the additional elements of providing and receiving associations among user profiles. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are recited sufficiently broadly such that they amount to no more than generic computer components.
Claim 12 recites the additional elements of a machine learning model and user data elements to recommend and establish relationship between two users. This additional element, when considered individually or in combination, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are recited sufficiently broadly such that they amount to no more than generic computer components.
Claim 14 and 29 recite the additional element of a live video communication session. This additional element, when considered individually or in combination, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are recited sufficiently broadly such that they amount to no more than generic computer components.
Claim 26 recites the additional element of storing data to indicate the stage matching between two user relationships. This additional element, when considered individually or in combination, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are recited sufficiently broadly such that they amount to no more than generic computer components.
Claim 27 essentially recite the additional element of providing a user interface to approve second user relationship. This additional element, when considered individually or in combination, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are recited sufficiently broadly such that they amount to no more than generic computer components.
Claim 28 recites the additional elements of a network communications and client devices. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are recited sufficiently broadly such that they amount to no more than generic computer components.
Claim 30 recites the additional element of storing data to indicate the cancelation of a relationship. This additional element, when considered individually or in combination, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are recited sufficiently broadly such that they amount to no more than generic computer components.
Claim 31 recites the additional elements of a database and a plurality of users. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are recited sufficiently broadly such that they amount to no more than generic computer components.
Claim 32-34 recites the additional elements of a database and a plurality of users. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the limitations do not provide a meaningful limitation because it merely states that the abstract idea should be applied to achieve a desired result.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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, 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.
Claims 1 -2, 5-7, 11-12, 14-16, 18, 20-21, 23, 25-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belton et al, United States Patent Application Publication US 20150324467 A1, herein referred to as “Belton” in view of Paul et al, United States Patent Application Publication US 20200356240 A1, herein referred to as “Paul”.
Regarding Claims 1, 15 and 20, Belton teaches the following limitations:
A computer-implemented method comprising:
(¶0073 and Fig. 6)
storing a first association between a first user of a social network and a first role held by the first user, and
(¶0055-56) stores information on relationships between users
Also reference (¶0053) discussing user profiles in a social network
storing a second association between a second user of the social network and a second role held by the second user, wherein the first role is different from the second role;
(¶0055-56) stores information on relationships between users
Also reference (¶0053) discussing user profiles in a social network
receiving a request to establish a first type of role-based relationship between the first user and the second user, wherein the first type of role-based relationship is specific to the first role and the second role;
(¶0054) an entity has expressed interest to be paired with another entity via the matching component
based on the request, storing an indication of the first type of role-based relationship between the first user and the second user;
(¶0054) the matching component utilizes the storage component for storing information for future matching, pairing or reference
querying a database storing a plurality of elements, wherein each element of the plurality of elements is associated with one or more types of role-based relationships that are specific to roles of users in the role-based relationships, and wherein the plurality of elements comprises at least one of user interface elements, application features, operations performable by client devices or requestable by client devices to be performed at a remote server, user images, user statistics, or protected user data, in which the querying includes selecting, from the plurality of elements, a subset of elements that are associated with the first type of role-based relationship
(¶0025 and Fig. 3) utilizing the interface component to screen one or more portions of a profile that may be viewable by the public or via a privacy settings manager
providing, to a first client device associated with the first user, the subset of elements, at least one of the subset of elements being for display in a graphical user interface of the first client device
(¶0023) the interface component can use a graphical user interface (GUI) that allows a profile owner to control, modify, edit, etc. aspects of the profile
wherein the providing compromises: initiating, based on a presence of the first type of role-based relationship between the first user and the second user, a live communication session between the first client device and a second client device associated with the second user, by providing the first client device and the second client device with synchronized user interfaces configured to be cooperatively interacted- with in real-time by the first user and the second user to jointly carry out operations within a scope of the first type of role-based relationship
(¶0023) the interface component can use a graphical user interface (GUI) that allows a profile owner to control, modify, edit, etc. aspects of the profile
However, Belton does not fully teach a live communication session. Paul does teach a live communication session between a first and second user.
(¶0097) to initiate and/or facilitate communications by telephone, video conference, e-mail, or IM, and so forth
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Belton to provide a notification and the teachings of Paul to initiate a live communication session between users in the form of a video conference to facilitate collaboration.
Regarding Claims 2, 16 and 21, Belton and Paul teach all of the claim limitations above; Belton further teaches the following limitations:
wherein the subset of elements comprises data associated with the second user, and wherein the first user is excluded from obtaining the data associated with the second user in the absence of the first type of role-based relationship.
(¶0065 and Fig. 2) determine a set of rights based upon the relationship between the first user and the second user
Regarding Claim 5, Belton and Paul teach all of the claim limitations above; Belton further teaches the following limitations:
wherein the first role comprises a match seeker role, wherein the second role comprises a matchmaker role, wherein the first type of role-based relationship comprises a matchmaker-match seeker relationship, and wherein the synchronized user interfaces provide a joint review of a potential match for the first user
(¶0056) the interface component may render a search or matching component to enable a user to select one or more goals
See also (¶0082-83) the system may include an interface component providing a first interface for the first entity; the system includes a communication component notifying the second entity of management actions taken by the first entity including modifying and updating content, data or information associated with the profile
Regarding Claim 6, Belton and Paul teach all of the claim limitations above; Belton further teaches the following limitations:
A wherein the first role comprises a match seeker role, wherein the second role comprises a stylist role or a cosmetician role, wherein the first type of role-based relationship comprises a stylist-match seeker relationship or a cosmetician-match seeker relationship, and wherein the synchronized user interfaces provide joint alteration of an image of the first user
See also (¶0056) the interface component may render a search or matching component to enable a user to select one or more goals
See also (¶0082-83) the system may include an interface component providing a first interface for the first entity; the system includes a communication component notifying the second entity of management actions taken by the first entity including modifying and updating content, data or information associated with the profile
Regarding Claim 7, Belton and Paul teach all of the claim limitations above; Belton further teaches the following limitations:
providing, in the synchronized user interfaces, a social network profile of the second user;
(¶0036) being that the second entity manage or altered the profile of the first entity, the second entity via the second management component suggests additions or updates to the first entity’s profile where the first management component will utilize an interface component to approve one or more changes.
receiving, from the first client device, via the synchronized user interface provided to the first client device, a proposed change to the social network profile, wherein the proposed change is indicated on the first client device using a first element of the subset of elements;
(¶0036) additional content provided by the second entity may be added to the profile pending approval from the first entity via a notification from the communication component
providing, to the second client device, in the synchronized user interface provided to the second client device, the social network profile modified to incorporate the proposed change
(¶0036) additional content provided by the second entity may be added to the profile pending approval from the first entity via a notification from the communication component
receiving, from the second client device, via the synchronized user interface provided to the second client device, an indication of approval or disapproval of the proposed change.
(¶0037) the second management component may relay any modification suggestions to the second entity; an iterative back and forth may occur until all entities accepts, declines or rejects one or more of the changes
Regarding Claims 11, 18 and 23, Belton and Paul teach all of the claim limitations above; Belton further teaches the following limitations:
storing a third association between the first user of the social network and a third role held by the first user, wherein the first user holds the first role and the third role simultaneously;
(¶0038 and Fig. 1) the management component manages rights of an entity with respect to portions of a profile of a first entity based on a relationship between the first entity and the additional entity or role of the additional entity; Fig. 1 includes the connection between the management component and the storage component
receiving a request to establish a second type of role-based relationship between the first user and the second user, wherein the second type of role-based relationship is specific to the third role and the second role;
(¶0038 and Fig. 1) the management component manages rights of an entity with respect to portions of a profile of a first entity based on a relationship between the first entity and the additional entity or role of the additional entity; Fig. 1 includes the connection between the management component and the storage component to store and receive profile and relationship information
storing an indication of the second type of role-based relationship between the first user and the second user, wherein the second type of role-based relationship exists simultaneously with the first type of role-based relationship;
(¶0038 and Fig. 1) the management component manages rights of an entity with respect to portions of a profile of a first entity based on a relationship between the first entity and the additional entity or role of the additional entity; Fig. 1 includes the connection between the management component and the storage component to store and receive profile and relationship information
selecting, from the plurality of elements, a second subset of elements that are associated with the second type of role-based relationship; and
(¶0038) using the management component to discover data or content of a user profile based on the relationship between entities
providing, to the first client device, the second subset of elements.
(¶0039) a content control component detects one or more portions of a profile that are relevant to another entity based on aspects of a profile, such as, keywords, project names, image recognition, etc.
Regarding Claim 12, Belton and Paul teach all of the claim limitations above; Belton further teaches the following limitations:
prior to receiving the request, providing, as inputs to a machine learning model,
(¶0070) the support vector machine (SVM) may be configured via a learning or training phase within a classifier constructor and feature selection module that enables a classifier to be used to automatically learn and perform a number of functions
data of the first user, data of the second user, the first role, and the second role;
(¶0053) the matching component may build a mentoring program by generating multiple mentor-mentee pairings in an automated fashion, rather than by utilizing typical processes (e.g., utilizing human resources manpower, etc.)
obtaining, as an output of the machine learning model,
(¶0070) perform a number of functions, including but not limited to determining according to a predetermined criteria
a recommendation to establish the first type of role-based relationship between the first user and the second user; and
(¶0058) the matching component provides suggestions, such as a “you make like” suggestion for an individual or entity utilizing a matching or search interface rendered by the interface component
sending, to at least one of the first user and the second user, the recommendation to establish the first type of role-based relationship between the first user and the second user.
(¶0058) the matching component provides suggestions, such as “you may like” for an individual or entity; suggestions may be based on reputation, personality types, etc.
Regarding Claim 14, Belton and Paul teach all of the claim limitations above; Belton further teaches the following limitations:
wherein the live communication session comprises live video communication.
(¶0080) devices may include communication connections to facilitate communications with one or more devices
However, Belton does not fully teach a live communication session. Paul does teach a live communication session between a first and second user.
(¶0097) to initiate and/or facilitate communications by telephone, video conference, e-mail, or IM, and so forth
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Belton to provide a notification and the teachings of Paul to initiate a live communication session between users in the form of a video conference to facilitate collaboration.
Regarding Claim 25, Belton and Paul teach the following limitations:
A computer-implemented method comprising:
(¶0073 and Fig. 6)
storing data indicating a first relationship between a first user of a social network and a second user of the social network
(¶0054) the matching component utilizes the storage component for storing information for future matching, pairing or reference
Receiving, from a first client device associated with the first user, a request to substitute a third user of the social network for the first user in the first relationship
(¶0057-58) the matching component provides summaries across various profile factors and provide suggestions, such as a “you may like” recommendation
See also (¶0060) the matching component may determine if there is a positive match between the first individual and a third individual and be sent an introduction to be connected
receiving, from at least one of a second client device associated with the second user and a third client device associated with the third user, at least one corresponding approval of the request
(¶0040) the system will be enabled to provide additional management components that will enable additional entities
in response to receiving the at least one corresponding approval, storing data indicating a second relationship between the second user and the third user
(¶0084) the method may include collecting content for the profile from one or more sources, previewing the profile for the first entity, second entity, or a third entity; one or more opportunities may be a mentorship relationship among the first entity and more additional entities
Regarding Claim 26, Belton and Paul teach all of the claim limitations above; Belton further teaches the following limitations:
wherein storing the data indicating the second relationship comprises automatically initiating the second relationship at a stage matching a latest stage of the first relationship, wherein the latest stage is one of a hierarchical series of stages that define a scope of permitted interactions between users.
(¶0047 and Fig. 1) the storage component stores content, data, information of one or more profiles including rights, privileges, access, or control properties
See also (¶0082-83) the system includes a storage component that stores the profile or portions of the profile, sets of rights, and permissions to preview profiles based on the set of rights; the system also includes a matching component enabling a second entity to search one or more portions of the profile based on privileges
Regarding Claim 27, Belton and Paul teach all of the claim limitations above; Belton further teaches the following limitations:
wherein the latest stage of the first relationship comprises an initial stage, and wherein the method comprises: providing, to the second client device, a user interface configured to be used to approve or disapprove the second user.
(¶0044) the interface component may provide a second entity with a content control interface to control access level that may adjust visibility of associated content accordingly
Regarding Claim 28, Belton and Paul teach all of the claim limitations above; Belton further teaches the following limitations:
wherein the latest stage of the first relationship comprises an approved stage, and wherein the method comprises at least one of: enabling network communications between the second user and the third user, or providing, to the second client device associated with the second user, private data of the third user that is inaccessible to the second user in the absence of an approved match between the second user and the third user.
(¶0045) the control component grants the second entity access to content that is restricted from public view, while the third entity only has access to content in public view and would not be able to see the content with restricted access
Regarding Claim 29, Belton and Paul teach all of the claim limitations above; Belton further teaches the following limitations:
wherein the method comprises enabling the network communications between the second user and the third user;
(¶0080) devices may include communication connections to facilitate communications with one or more devices
and wherein the network communications comprise live video communication.
(¶0080) devices may include communication connections to facilitate communications with one or more devices
However, Belton does not fully teach a live communication session. Paul does teach a live communication session between a first and second user.
(¶0097) to initiate and/or facilitate communications by telephone, video conference, e-mail, or IM, and so forth
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Belton to provide a notification and the teachings of Paul to initiate a live communication session between users in the form of a video conference to facilitate collaboration.
Regarding Claim 30, Belton and Paul teach all of the claim limitations above; Belton further teaches the following limitations:
in response to receiving the at least one corresponding approval, storing data indicating a cancellation of the first relationship.
(¶0044) if the first entity modifies or content such that it is no longer related to the second entity or falls below a threshold disclosure level, the content control component may remove access from the second entity
Regarding Claim 31, Belton and Paul teach all of the claim limitations above; Belton further teaches the following limitations:
wherein the first relationship comprises a first role-based relationship specific to a first role held by the first user and a second role held by the second user, and wherein the method comprises, prior to receiving the request to substitute the third user:
(¶0058) suggestion to avoid being paired with a second individual
(¶0066 and Fig. 3) one or more entities may be matched with the additional entity based on search criteria
querying a database storing a plurality of users, wherein each user of the plurality of users is associated with one or more respective roles held by the user, and wherein the querying includes selecting, from the plurality of users, a subset of users that hold the first role; and
(¶0057) the search interface is used to match differing needs and provide summaries across departments, vendors, targets, analytics, profiles, etc.
providing for selection, to the first client device associated with the first user, the subset of users
(¶0066 and Fig. 3) one or more entities may be matched with the additional entity based on search criteria
Regarding Claim 32, Belton and Paul teach all of the claim limitations above; Belton further teaches the following limitation:
wherein the subset of elements comprise at least one of a role data-field or a role-based relationship data-field:
(¶0038 and Fig. 1) the management component manages rights of an entity with respect to portions of a profile of a first entity based on a relationship between the first entity and the additional entity or role of the additional entity; Fig. 1 includes the connection between the management component and the storage component
See also (¶0047 and Fig. 1) the storage component stores content, data, information of one or more profiles including rights, privileges, access, or control properties
Regarding Claim 33, Belton and Paul teach all of the claim limitations above; Belton further teaches the following limitation:
wherein the at least one of the role data-field or the role-based relationship data-field is included in a header of the subset of elements or metadata of the subset of elements:
(¶0038 and Fig. 1) the management component manages rights of an entity with respect to portions of a profile of a first entity based on a relationship between the first entity and the additional entity or role of the additional entity; Fig. 1 includes the connection between the management component and the storage component
See also (¶0047 and Fig. 1) the storage component stores content, data, information of one or more profiles including rights, privileges, access, or control properties
Regarding Claim 34, Belton and Paul teach all of the claim limitations above; Belton further teaches the following limitation:
wherein the subset of elements are associated with at least class configured to mediate the association between the subset of elements and the first type of role-based relationship:
(¶0038 and Fig. 1) the management component manages rights of an entity with respect to portions of a profile of a first entity based on a relationship between the first entity and the additional entity or role of the additional entity; Fig. 1 includes the connection between the management component and the storage component
See also (¶0047 and Fig. 1) the storage component stores content, data, information of one or more profiles including rights, privileges, access, or control properties
Claims 3-4, 8-10, 17, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belton et al, United States Patent Application Publication US 20150324467 A1, herein referred to as “Belton” in view of Paul et al, United States Patent Application Publication US 20200356240 A1, herein referred to as “Paul” and Arilla et al, United States Patent Application Publication US 20190073537 A1, herein referred to as “Arilla”.
Regarding Claims 3, 17 and 22, Belton and Paul teach all of the claim limitations above; Belton further teaches the following limitations:
applying a trained image classification machine learning model to a set of images associated with the second user;
(¶0039) the control component may detect portions of the profile that are relevant to a second entity based upon image recognition
However, Belton does not fully teach trained image classification machine learning model. Arilla does disclose trained image classification machine learning model as it relates to a set of images associated with the second user.
(¶0032) once trained, input may be provided to the image machine learning system to generate output, specifically that the image machine learning system can predict images that should perform well with end users
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Belton to detect the profile objects relevant to the second user and the teachings of Arilla to facilitate the recognition and classification of user images. The combination of these teachings would have resulted in streamlined analysis of images.
obtaining, as an output of the trained image classification machine learning model, image classification labels for images of the set of images; and
(¶0039) the control component may detect portions of the profile that are relevant to a second entity based upon image recognition
However, Belton does not fully teach image classification labels for images. Arilla does disclose image classification labels for images as it relates to a trained image classification machine learning model for the set of images.
(¶0036 and Fig. 6) a collection of attributes that can be used to represent an image to the image machine learning system; including a general description of each attribute
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Belton to detect the profile objects relevant to the second user and the teachings of Arilla to facilitate the recognition and classification of user images. The combination of these teachings would have resulted in a streamlined process for classification of images to ensure proper assignment based upon the user role.
based on the image classification labels, storing an association between a first image of the set of images and the first type of role-based relationship, wherein the subset of elements includes the first image.
(¶0039) the control component may detect portions of the profile that are relevant to a second entity based upon image recognition
However, Belton does not fully teach image classification labels for images. Arilla does disclose image classification labels for images as it relates to a trained image classification machine learning model for the set of images.
(¶0036 and Fig. 6) a collection of attributes that can be used to represent an image to the image machine learning system; including a general description of each attribute
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Belton to detect the profile objects relevant to the second user and the teachings of Arilla to facilitate the recognition and classification of user images. The combination of these teachings would have resulted in a streamlined process for classification of images to ensure proper assignment based upon the user role.
Regarding Claim 4, Belton, Paul and Arilla teach all of the claim limitations above; Belton further teaches the following limitations:
wherein storing the association between the first image and the first type of role-based relationship is based on an object depicted in the first image.
(¶0039 and Fig. 1) the content control component may identify one or more portions of a profile that may be relevant to a second entity through image recognition; the content control component directly interacts with the storage component to store this data
Regarding Claim 8, Belton and Paul teach all of the claim limitations above; Belton further teaches the following limitations:
determining that an image associated with the second user matches a predetermined criteria;
(¶0039) the control component may detect portions of the profile that are relevant to a second entity based upon image recognition
However, Belton does not fully teach images associated a second user that matches predetermined criteria. Arilla does disclose images associated a second user that matches predetermined criteria as it relates to tagging images.
(¶0025) identifying the listing of ranked images, data may be stored in a processed image database (e.g., data representing the images, representing attributes of the images, etc.) for later retrieve and use
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Belton to detect the profile objects relevant to the second user and the teachings of Arilla to facilitate the recognition and classification of user images using predetermined criteria. The combination of these teachings would have resulted in a streamlined process for classification of images to ensure proper assignment based upon the user role.
based on determining that the image associated with the second user matches the predetermined criteria, storing an association between the image and the first type of role-based relationship;
(¶0024) the interface component allows the first entity to upload supplemental content, such as graphics, images
However, Belton does not fully teach how to identify images associated a second user that matches predetermined criteria. Arilla does disclose how to identify images associated a second user that matches predetermined criteria as it relates to the association between images and the role-based relationship.
(¶0028) the image manager includes an image collector that is capable of receiving data or attributes that represents images and will tag them as such; a number of attributes that reflect aspects of an image include graphic, content, and text content aspects, etc.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Belton to store images to a profile and the teachings of Arilla to disclose how to identify images associated a second user that matches predetermined criteria as it relates to the association between images and the role-based relationship. The combination of these teachings would have resulted in a streamlined process for classification of images to ensure proper assignment based upon the user role.
providing, in the synchronized user interfaces, the image, wherein the image is included in the subset of elements;
(¶0036) the second management component manages the communication component notify the first entity that one or more additional entities, such as the second entity, have managed or altered one or more aspects of the profile for the first entity
However, Belton does not fully teach how to determine whether an image is included in a subset of elements. Arilla does disclose how to determine whether an image is included in a subset of elements.
(¶0028) the image manager includes an image collector that is capable of receiving data or attributes that represents images and will be tagged as such; a number of attributes that reflect aspects of an image include graphic aspects, content aspects, text content aspects, etc.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Belton to store images to a profile and the teachings of Arilla to disclose how to determine whether an image is included in a subset of elements. The combination of these teachings would have resulted in a streamlined process for classification of images to ensure proper assignment based upon the user role.
receiving, from the first client device , via the synchronized user interface provided to the first client device, a proposed change to the image;
(¶0036) the second management component manages the communication component notify the first entity that one or more additional entities, such as the second entity, have managed or altered one or more aspects of the profile for the first entity
However, Belton does not fully teach how to receive a proposed change to the image. Arilla does disclose how to receive a proposed change to the image.
(¶0028) the image manager includes an image collector that is capable of receiving data or attributes that represents images and will be tagged as such; a number of attributes that reflect aspects of an image include graphic aspects, content aspects, text content aspects, etc.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Belton to store images to a profile and the teachings of Arilla to disclose how to receive a proposed change to the image. The combination of these teachings would have resulted in a streamlined process for classification of images to ensure proper assignment based upon the user role.
modifying the image to incorporate the proposed change, to obtain a modified image; and
(¶0036) the second management component manages the communication component notify the first entity that one or more additional entities, such as the second entity, have managed or altered one or more aspects of the profile for the first entity
However, Belton does not fully teach how to modify images to incorporate the proposed change. Arilla does disclose how to modify images to incorporate the proposed change.
(¶0032) the image machine learning system generates an output of further imagery (e.g., a group of images) that may be created, based upon the data used to train the learning system (e.g., data, images, etc. that reflect positively with end users); additionally, the image machine learning system can predict images that should perform well with end users
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Belton to incorporate modified profile objects and the teachings of Arilla to facilitate the modification of images to incorporate the proposed change. The combination of these teachings would have resulted in streamlined incorporation of desirable attributes of images to user profiles.
providing the modified image to the first client device and the second client device in the synchronized user interfaces.
(¶0036) the second management component manages the communication component notify the first entity that one or more additional entities, such as the second entity, have managed or altered one or more aspects of the profile for the first entity
Regarding Claim 9, Belton teaches all of the claim limitations above; Belton further teaches the following limitations:
adding the modified image to a profile page of the second user.
(¶0024) the front end interface enables a user to modify or update profile content; the interface component allows the first entity to upload supplemental content, such as graphics, etc.
Regarding Claim 10, Belton, Paul and Arilla teach all of the claim limitations above; Belton further teaches the following limitations:
wherein modifying the image comprises modifying the image to incorporate a product proposed by the first user.
(¶0024) the front end interface may enable a user or an entity to add, modify, update, delete, remove, or otherwise manage content or information associated with a profile; additionally, the interface component may allow the first entity to upload supplemental content, such as graphics, images, multimedia connect, etc. to their profile
However, Belton does not fully teach how to modify an image to incorporate a product. Arilla does disclose how to modify an image to incorporate a product.
(¶0023-24) imagery may be collected and appropriately filtered to remove unwanted content (e.g., filter out off-brand imagery and retain imagery relevant to the brand); products and images of the products may be associated and context added to the imagery (e.g., insert keywords into images) to form an association between a product, service, etc. with an image; the system may present brand-related imagery (e.g., images of brand products, services, etc.) for user interaction (e.g., viewing, selecting, purchasing, etc.)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Belton to incorporate modified profile objects and the teachings of Arilla to facilitate the modification of images to incorporate the proposed change. The combination of these teachings would have resulted in streamlined incorporation of desirable attributes of images to user profiles.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAHUL SHARMA whose telephone number is (571) 272-3058. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday, 8-5 CT.
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, Nathan Uber can be reached on (571) 270-3923. 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.
/RAHUL SHARMA/Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/NATHAN C UBER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626