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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The following is a Non-Final Office Action in response to communication received on 8/18/2025. Claims 1-30 are pending in the application.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/18/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1 and 14-16 are acknowledged. Applicant’s addition of new claim 30 is acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 101 rejection, on pages 13-16 of Remarks is acknowledged. Here Applicant specifically argues the addition of “monitoring, by a machine learning model, communications over the live communication for forbidden content.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees that this limitation makes the claims eligible under 101 in view of current 101 eligibility analysis guidance.
Specifically:
It is a human activity to determine forbidden content by a model as broadly recited in the claim. Here with respect to the additional element that this model is machine learning there are no details about a particular machine learning or how the machine learning operates to derive information other than it being used to generally apply the abstract idea (e.g. determine forbidden content). The claims do not placing any limitation how the machine learning operates to derive that information. The limitation recites only the idea of using a machine learning model without details on how this is accomplished. The claim omits any details as to how the machine learning model solves a technical problem and instead recites only the idea of a solution or outcome. The claim invokes a generic machine learning model merely as a tool for making the recited calculation or determination rather than purporting to improve the technology or a computer. Further this can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the field of computers (further see USPTO machine learning examples, like Examples 47)
Therefore the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant’s arguments on pages 14-15 with respect to Applicant’s amendments and the prior art are acknowledged. These arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection found in the office action below.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1-30 are process claims as the claims recite methods.
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 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim(s) recite(s) the idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying information based on the collection and analysis to then perform speed dating or matching of users to establish relationships.
The idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying information based on the collection and analysis to then perform speed dating or matching of users to establish relationships is managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teachings, or following rules or interactions which is a certain method of organizing human activities.
Certain methods of organizing human activities are in the groupings of enumerated abstracts ideas, and hence the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims merely recite limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application in that the claims merely recite: (1) Adding the words “apply it” ( or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) And (2) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Specifically as recited in the claims:
As per claim 1, the claim recites collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying information based on the collection and analysis to then perform speed dating or matching of users to establish relationships. These are all human activity steps.
The fact that the claims recite additional elements that these limitations that are human activity steps are instead recited at such a high level of generality as being performed by being “computer-implemented”, “a server”, “ a first client device/ a second client device/ and a set of client devices”, “graphical user interface (GUI)”, “GUI elements”, and “ a virtual lobby”, merely results in no more than the recitation of the words “apply it” such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer.
The claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. Rather the recitation of the claim limitations attempt to over any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, other than merely reciting use of “computer-implemented”, “a server”, “ a first client device/ a second client device/ and a set of client devices”, “graphical user interface (GUI)”, “GUI elements”, and “ a virtual lobby” at the apply it level, therefore does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it.”
Further the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g. a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more, as is the case here as the generic computer components recited at such a high level of generality of “computer-implemented”, “a server”, “ a first client device/ a second client device/ and a set of client devices”, “graphical user interface (GUI)”, “GUI elements”, and “ a virtual lobby”, are merely used as a tool to perform an existing process in their ordinary capacity of receiving, storing, and transmitting data.
It is a human activity to determination forbidden content according to a model. Here with respect to the additional element of the model being machine learning there are no details about a particular machine learning or how the machine learning operates to derive information other than it being used to generally apply the abstract idea (e.g. determine forbidden content). The claims do not place any limitation on how the machine learning operates to derive that information. The limitation recites only the idea of using a machine learning model without details on how this is accomplished. The claim omits any details as to how the machine learning model solves a technical problem and instead recites only the idea of a solution or outcome. The claim invokes a generic machine learning model merely as a tool for making the recited calculation or determination rather than purporting to improve the technology or a computer. Further this can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the field of computers (further see USPTO machine learning examples, like Examples 47)
Further limitations that could be performed by a human or humans that are instead recited as being performed by being ““computer-implemented”, “a server”, “ a first client device/ a second client device/ and a set of client devices”, “graphical user interface (GUI)”, “GUI elements”, and “ a virtual lobby”, merely recite generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment or computers.
Further all the other claims that recite a computer implemented method and additional elements follow the same analysis as above.
As per claim 2, the claims recite different types of events that the idea collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying information based on the collection and analysis to then perform speed dating or matching of users to establish relationships can be used for. These are functions are human activities like speed dating, singles events, and a live function in a lobby. The fact that the claims recite the additional elements that these limitations are instead recited at such a high level of generality as being a “virtual lobby” and a “streaming” function results in no more than apply it or generally linking it to the technological environment or computers as detailed above in claim 1.
As per claim 3, the claims recite receiving requests to enter into a function and generating groups for the various functions. These are human activities like speed dating, singles events, and a live function. The fact that the claims recite the additional elements that these limitations are instead recited at such a high level of generality as being performed by “a virtual lobby”, “a server”, “Client devices” ” and a “streaming” function results in no more than apply it or generally linking it to the technological environment or computers as detailed above in claims 1 and 2 above.
As per claim 4, the claims recite clustering users into groups based on criteria. These are functions are human activities steps. The fact that the claims recite the additional elements that these limitations are instead recited at such a high level of generality as being performed by “a server” results in no more than apply it or generally linking it to the technological environment or computers as detailed above in claims 1-3 above.
As per claim 5, the claims recite providing acceptance into a group of the speed dating, singles event, or live function to the user (client). These are human activities steps. The fact that the claims recite the additional elements that these limitations are instead recited at such a high level of generality as being performed by “ a server”, “client devices”, “GUI”, “virtual” lobby, and live “streaming” functions results in no more than apply it or generally linking it to the technological environment or computers as detailed above in claims 1-4 above.
As per claim 6, the claims recite assigning a communication between a first and second user at random, and then after a period of time ending that communication and establishing a communication between a second and third user. These are human activities steps. The fact that the claims recite the additional elements that these limitations are instead recited at such a high level of generality as being performed by “virtual lobby”, “ a server” and “client devices” results in no more than apply it or generally linking it to the technological environment or computers as detailed above in claim 1 above.
As per claim 7, the claims recite the first and the second user communicating over audio communications. These are human activities as users can speak to each other in a meeting. The fact that the claims recite the additional elements that these limitations are instead recited at such a high level of generality as being performed by “ a server” and “client devices” results in no more than apply it or generally linking it to the technological environment or computers as detailed above in claims 1 and 6 above.
As per claim 8, the claims recite receiving audio from a communication and generating annotations based on that, like writing down notes or checking in a box that you would like to communicate with a user outside the speed dating or singles event. These are limitations human activities steps as they are recited at such a high level of generality. The fact that the claims recite the additional elements of these limitations are instead recited at such a high level of generality as being performed by “ a server” and “client devices” results in no more than apply it or generally linking it to the technological environment or computers as detailed above in claims 1 and 6-7 above.
As per claim 9, the claims recite allowing a first and second user to communicate in a lobby, not allowing others to access their communications for a predefined period of time, then allowing the user to access other communications with other users, and allowing a request to communicate with another user and allowing the other user to accept the request. These are human activities as they are recited at such a high level of generality. The fact that the claims recite the additional elements of these limitations are instead recited at such a high level of generality as being performed by “ a server”, “client devices”, and “virtual” lobby, results in no more than apply it or generally linking it to the technological environment or computers as detailed above in claim 1 above.
As per claim 10, the claims recite allowing a private conversation between two individuals in for example a speed dating environment, where two users can for example talk to each other (e.g. audio). These are human activities steps as they are recited at such a high level of generality. The fact that the claims recite the additional elements these limitations are instead recited at such a high level of generality as being performed by “ a server”, “client devices”, and “virtual” lobby, results in no more than apply it or generally linking it to the technological environment or computers as detailed above in claims 1 and 9 above.
As per claim 11, the claims recite the first and second users hear conversations from other users at a low level volume. This is a function that happens in a speed dating environment when all the users are each having mini dates at different tables or parts of the room. Therefore these are human activity steps as they are recited at such a high level of generality. The fact that the claims recite the additional elements that these limitations are instead recited at such a high level of generality as being performed by “client devices” results in no more than apply it or generally linking it to the technological environment or computers as detailed above in claims 1 and 9-10 above.
As per claim 12, the claims recite the others cannot hear the conversation between the second and first user, like cannot hear the speaking. This is a function that happens in a speed dating environment when all the users are each having mini dates at different tables or parts of the room. Therefore this is a human activity step as they are recited at such a high level of generality. There are no additional computer elements of for example a client device or computer or server in this claim recitation, therefore there are no additional elements beyond those previously discussed above.
As per claim 13, the claims recite after the speed dating initial meeting is over allowing the user to communicate outside the lobby. This is a function that happens in a speed dating environment where the users can exchange contact information with interest parties. Therefore this a human activity step as it is recited at such a high level of generality. The fact that the claims recite the additional element of these limitations are instead recited at such a high level of generality as being performed by “client devices”, “virtual” lobby, “social networking application” and “ a server” results in no more than apply it or generally linking it to the technological environment or computers as detailed above in claim 1 above.
As per claim 14, the claim recites collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying information based on the collection and analysis to then perform speed dating or matching of users to establish relationships. These are all human activity steps given the broad recitation in the claim.
The fact that these human activity steps instead recite the additional elements that they are instead recited at such a high level of generality as being performed by “a server”, “ a first client device/ a second client device/ and a set of client devices”, “GUI”, “GUI elements”, and “ a virtual lobby”, merely results in no more than the recitation of the words “apply it” such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer.
The claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. Rather the recitation of the claim limitations attempt to over any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, other than merely reciting use of “a server”, “ a first client device/ a second client device/ and a set of client devices”, “GUI”, “GUI element”, and “ a virtual lobby” at the apply it level, therefore does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it.”
Further the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g. a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more, as is the case here as the generic computer components recited at such a high level of generality of “a server”, “ a first client device/ a second client device/ and a set of client devices”, “GUI”, “GUI element”, and “ a virtual lobby”, are merely used as a tool to perform an existing process in their ordinary capacity of receiving, storing, and transmitting data.
It is a human activity step to determination forbidden content by using a model. Here with respect to the additional element of the model being machine learning, there are no details about a particular machine learning or how the machine learning operates to derive information other than it being used to generally apply the abstract idea (e.g. determine forbidden content). The claims does not place placing any limitation how the machine learning operates to derive that information. The limitation recites only the idea of using a machine learning model without details on how this is accomplished. The claim omits any details as to how the machine learning model solves a technical problem and instead recites only the idea of a solution or outcome. The claim invokes a generic machine learning model merely as a tool for making the recited calculation or determination rather than purporting to improve the technology or a computer. Further this can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the field of computers (further see USPTO machine learning examples, like Examples 47)
Further limitations that could be performed by a human or humans that are instead recited as being performed by “a server”, “ a first client device/ a second client device/ and a set of client devices”, “GUI”, “GUI element”, and “ a virtual lobby”, merely recite generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment or computers.
As per claim 15, the claim recites collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying information based on the collection and analysis to then perform speed dating or matching of users to establish relationships. These are all certain methods of organizing human activity steps.
The fact that these limitations recite the additional elements that the claims are instead recited at such a high level of generality as being performed by “a server”, “ a first client device/ a second client device/ and a set of client devices”, “GUI”, “GUI element”, and “ a virtual lobby”, merely results in no more than the recitation of the words “apply it” such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer.
The claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. Rather the recitation of the claim limitations attempt to over any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, other than merely reciting use of “a server”, “ a first client device/ a second client device/ and a set of client devices”, “GUI”, “GUI element”, and “ a virtual lobby”, at the apply it level, therefore does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it.”
Further the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g. a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more, as is the case here as the generic computer components recited at such a high level of generality of “a server”, “ a first client device/ a second client device/ and a set of client devices”, “GUI”, “GUI element”, and “ a virtual lobby”, are merely used as a tool to perform an existing process in its ordinary capacity of receiving, storing, and transmitting data.
It is a human activity step to determination forbidden content by using a model. Here with respect to the additional element of machine learning there are no details about a particular machine learning or how the machine learning operates to derive information other than it being used to generally apply the abstract idea (e.g. determine forbidden content). The claims do not place any limitation how the machine learning operates to derive that information. The limitation recites only the idea of using a machine learning model without details on how this is accomplished. The claim omits any details as to how the machine learning model solves a technical problem and instead recites only the idea of a solution or outcome. The claim invokes a generic machine learning model merely as a tool for making the recited calculation or determination rather than purporting to improve the technology or a computer. Further this can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the field of computers (further see USPTO machine learning examples, like Examples 47)
Further limitations that could be performed by a human or humans that are instead recited as being performed by “a server”, “ a first client device/ a second client device/ and a set of client devices”, “GUI”, “GUI element”, and “ a virtual lobby”, merely recite generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment or computers.
As per claim 16, the claim recites collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying information based on the collection and analysis to then perform speed dating or matching of users to establish relationships. These are all limitations human activity steps.
The fact that these limitations recite the additional elements at such a high level of generality as being performed by “a server”, “ a first client device/ a second client device/ and a plurality of client devices”, “graphical user interface (GUI)”, “GUI elements”, and “ a virtual lobby”, merely results in no more than the recitation of the words “apply it” such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. The claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. Rather the recitation of the claim limitations attempt to over any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, other than merely reciting use of ““a server”, “ a first client device/ a second client device/ and a plurality of client devices”, “graphical user interface (GUI)”, “GUI elements”, and “ a virtual lobby” at the apply it level, therefore does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it.”
Further the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g. a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more, as is the case here as the generic computer components recited at such a high level of generality of “a server”, “ a first client device/ a second client device/ and a plurality of client devices”, “graphical user interface (GUI)”, “GUI elements”, and “ a virtual lobby”, are merely used as a tool to perform an existing process in their ordinary capacity of receiving, storing, and transmitting data.
It is a human activity step to determination forbidden content by using a model. Here with respect to the additional element of model being machine learning there are no details about a particular machine learning or how the machine learning operates to derive information other than it being used to generally apply the abstract idea (e.g. determine forbidden content). The claim does not place any limitation how the machine learning operates to derive that information. The limitation recites only the idea of using a machine learning model without details on how this is accomplished. The claim omits any details as to how the machine learning model solves a technical problem and instead recites only the idea of a solution or outcome. The claim invokes a generic machine learning model merely as a tool for making the recited calculation or determination rather than purporting to improve the technology or a computer. Further this can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the field of computers (further see USPTO machine learning examples, like Examples 47)
Further limitations that human activity steps that are instead recited as being performed by “a server”, “ a first client device/ a second client device/ and a plurality of client devices”, “graphical user interface (GUI)”, “GUI elements”, and “ a virtual lobby”, merely recite generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment or computers.
As per claim 17, the claim recites that the communication is a real time communication between the first and the second user. This is a function that happens in a speed dating environment where the users communicate with each other in real time, therefore is human activities steps as they are recited at such a high level of generality. The fact that these limitations recite the additional elements that these limitations are instead recited at such a high level of generality as being performed by “client devices” and through “ a server of the social network” results in no more than apply it or generally linking it to the technological environment or computers as detailed above in claims 16 above.
As per claim 18, the claim recites presenting live communications. These are limitations that happens in a speed dating environment with humans for example users communicate with each other which includes visual and audio data, therefore is human activities steps as they are recited at such a high level of generality. The fact that these limitations recite the additional elements that they being performed by “transmission of one or more of audio data and video data” results in no more than apply it or generally linking it to the technological environment or computers as detailed above in claims 16 above.
As per claim 19, the claim recites presenting live communications to a second user. These are limitations that happens in a speed dating environment with humans for example users communicate with each other which includes visual and audio data, therefore this is human activities steps as they are recited at such a high level of generality. The fact that the claims recite the additional elements that these limitations are instead recited at such a high level of generality as being performed by “a feed” and “to the second client device” results in no more than apply it or generally linking it to the technological environment or computers as detailed above in claims 16 above.
As per claim 20, the claim recites determining a user has over a threshold number of matches and therefore allowing another user to communicate with a user but not the user who already has over a threshold number of matches. These are human activities steps for example if a user already has too matches or dates, not allowing other users to communicate with the user and instead matching the user with other users. The fact that these limitations recite the additional elements that they are instead recited at such a high level of generality as being performed by “client device” results in no more than apply it or generally linking it to the technological environment or computers as detailed above in claims 16 above.
As per claim 21, the claim recites enabling communication between a first and second user where that communication can include audio and physical information. These are human activities for example users communicate with each other which includes visual and audio data. The fact that the claims recite the additional elements that these limitations are instead recited at such a high level of generality as being performed by “client devices” results in no more than apply it or generally linking it to the technological environment or computers as detailed above in claims 16 above.
As per claim 22, the claim recites after termination of the live communication providing information that is indicative of a match is established between the users. These are limitations human activities steps for example users can provide information to another user that they are interested in meeting the user outside the speed dating function. The fact that the claims recite the additional elements that these limitations are instead recited at such a high level of generality as being performed by “client devices” results in no more than apply it or generally linking it to the technological environment or computers as detailed above in claims 16 above.
As per claim 23, The claims recite determining a communication includes a forbidden topic and terminating the communication. These are human activities in speed dating or general human communications. No machine or computer is required by the claims in this limitation. Therefore there are no additional elements beyond those discussed above.
As per claim 24, the claims recite receiving a request from a user to join an event. These are human activities limitations that happens in a speed dating environment for example users request to join an event. The fact that the claims recite the additional elements that these limitations are instead recited at such a high level of generality as being performed by “client devices” and a “virtual” lobby, a “streaming” function results in no more than apply it or generally linking it to the technological environment or computers as detailed above in claims 16 above.
As per claim 25, the claims recite receiving a request from a user to join an event. These are human activities limitations that happens in a speed dating environment for example users request to join an event. The fact that the claims recite the additional elements that these limitations are instead recited at such a high level of generality as being performed by “client devices” and a “virtual” lobby, a “streaming” function results in no more than apply it or generally linking it to the technological environment or computers as detailed above in claims 16 above.
As per claim 26, the claims recite providing a list of users that the user can interact and times with in the speed dating function. These are human activities limitations that happens in a speed dating environment for example users can be provided a list and meeting times for users in a speed dating environment. The fact that the claims recite the additional elements that these limitations are instead recited at such a high level of generality as being performed by “feed” and “client devices” results in no more than apply it or generally linking it to the technological environment or computers as detailed above in claims 19 above.
As per claim 27, the claims recite providing a list of users that the user can interact based on matching criteria. These are human activities limitations that happens in a speed dating environment for example users can be provided a list based on users matching criteria. The additional elements that these limitations are instead recited at such a high level of generality as being performed by “feed” and “client devices” results in no more than apply it or generally linking it to the technological environment or computers as detailed above in claims 19 above.
As per claim 28, the claims recite receiving a request and providing profile information of a user to another user before the speed dating takes placed. These are human activities limitations that happens in a speed dating environment for example users can be provided talking points or profiles of another user before a conversation. The additional elements that these limitations are instead recited at such a high level of generality as being performed by client devices” results in no more than apply it or generally linking it to the technological environment or computers as detailed above in claims 16 above.
As per claim 29, the claims recite receiving a request and providing profile information of a user to another user after or during the speed date. These are human activities limitations that happens in a speed dating environment for example users can be provided talking points or profiles of another user during or after a conversation. The additional elements that these limitations are instead recited at such a high level of generality as being performed by “client devices” results in no more than apply it or generally linking it to the technological environment or computers as detailed above in claims 16 above.
As per claim 30, the claims recite human activity steps of using a model (like rules) to determine forbidden content based on previously determined content that was labeled (determined) good (without bad) or bad content.
The additional element that this is being performed by a trained machine learning model merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers. Specifically there are no details about a particular trained machine learning or how the machine learning operates to derive information other than it being trained to generally apply the abstract idea (e.g. determine forbidden content). The claims do not place any limitation how the machine learning operates to derive that information. The limitation recites only the idea of using a machine learning model without details on how this is accomplished. The claim omits any details as to how the machine learning model solves a technical problem and instead recites only the idea of a solution or outcome. The claim invokes a generic trained machine learning model merely as a tool for making the recited calculation or determination rather than purporting to improve the technology or a computer. Further this can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the field of computers (further see USPTO machine learning examples, like Examples 47)
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims merely recite limitations that are not indicative of an inventive concept (“significantly more”) in that the claims merely recite: (1) Adding the words “apply it” ( or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) And (2) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), as detailed above with respect to the practical application step.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As per claim 1, Applicant recites on the GUI via the corresponding one or more interactive GUI elements. Here there is insufficient antecedent basis as the limitation, the corresponding one or more interactive GUI elements, as corresponding one or more interactive GUI elements is not previously recited in the claim. For the purposes of this examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim as follows: on the GUI via
Further claims 2-13 and 30 that depend off of claim 1 are rejected based on their dependency.
Further claims 14-15 that recite substantially similar claim language as found in claim 1 above and are therefore rejected under the same grounds.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10,12-19, and 21-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janssens et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2014/0040368) further in view of Panattoni et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2018/0341877).
As per claim 1, Janssens teaches A computer-implemented method comprising: (see paragraph 0037, Examiner’s note: method implemented by a computing device).
displaying, by a server (see paragraph 0215, Examiner’s note: implemented by a computing system which can include a physical server).
and on each client device of a set of client devices, (see paragraph 0217, Examiner’s note: interface displayed on an end user’s computing device).
a graphical user interface (GUI) that enables users to access a function of multiple functions of a virtual lobby using one or more interactive GUI elements, wherein the GUI is partitioned by the one or more interactive GUI elements representative of the multiple functions, wherein each function of the multiple functions is executed in parallel; (see paragraphs 0177-0179,0192, and 0194-0195, Examiner’s note: teaches multiple instances of speed dating may be performed in parallel (see paragraph 0179). Further teaches providing users speed dating based on preferences (see paragraphs 0177-0178), where this information may be provided by the user through an interface element (See paragraph 0192)).
generating, by the server, groups from a pre-selected number of users associated with the set of client devices to include in a respective function of the multiple functions of the virtual lobby, each group associated with the respective function based on the set of client devices that interacted with the respective function of the virtual lobby on the GUI via the corresponding one or more interactive GUI elements; (see paragraphs 0170-0171 and Figure 17, Examiner’s note: teaches groups and users in the queue)
providing, by the server, data to the set of client devices for each of the groups indicating acceptance into the respective function of the virtual lobby, the data causing each client device of the set to display elements related to the respective function of the virtual lobby; (see Figure 17, Examiner’s note: speed dating interface).
generating, by the server, a first communication channel for a particular one of the functions of the virtual lobby, the first communication channel enabling communication between first user of a first client device and a second user of a second client device from among the set of client devices that opted into the particular one of the functions; (see paragraphs 0177-0178, 0180-0181, Examiner’s note: providing speed dating and providing communication between users).
monitoring, by a model, communications over the first communication channel for forbidden content; (see paragraphs 0050 and 0085, Examiner’s note: user can report an offensive or abusive profile by activating a corresponding button (see paragraph 0050). Further teaches reviewing photographs for offensive matter or inappropriateness (See paragraph 0085)).
preventing, by the server, other client devices that opted into the particular one of the functions from accessing communications between the first client device and the second client device in the first communication channel; and in response to a closing of the first communication channel, generating, by the server, a second communication channel between the first client device and the second client device outside the virtual lobby (see paragraphs 0181-0184, Examiner’s note: it is not taught that other users are involved in this conversation, therefore the system prevents other users from being involved in the conversation. Further extending the speed dating or adding a user to a contact list).
Janssens does not expressly teach using machine learning to determine forbidden content or more specifically as recited in the claims monitoring by machine learning for forbidden content
However, Panattoni et al. which is in the art of machine learning content moderation (see abstract) teaches monitoring by machine learning for forbidden content (see paragraphs 0018, 0020, 0042-0043,0089, and Figures 3-4, Examiner’s note: machine learning for determining forbidden content where the content may be live).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Janssens with the aforementioned teachings from Panattoni et al. with the motivation of providing a way for a machine to determine bad or offensive content over time (see Panattoni et al. paragraphs 0018, 0020, 0042-0043,0089, and Figures 3-4), when using an automated way to determine offensive or bad content is known (see Janssens et al. paragraphs 0050 and 0085).
As per claim 2, Janssens teaches
wherein the multiple functions of the virtual lobby comprise (i) a speed dating audio function, (ii) a singles evening function, or (iii) a live streaming function (see paragraph 0171-0173, 0180-0184, Figure 17, Examiner’s note: speed dating, teaches this may include a live webcam, text chat, may be based on single status, and further teaches users enter data at different times).
As per claim 3, Janssens teaches
wherein generating the groups from the pre-selected number of users to include in the respective function of the multiple functions of the virtual lobby comprises: receiving, by the server, multiple requests from the set of client devices to enter the multiple functions comprising the speed dating audio function, the singles evening function, or the live streaming function; generating, by the server, a first group from the set of client devices to enter a first virtual lobby of the speed dating audio function; generating, by the server, a second group from the set of client devices to enter a second virtual lobby of the singles evening function; and generating, by the server, a third group from the set of client devices to enter a third virtual lobby of the live streaming function, wherein the users associated with the first group, the users associated with the second group, and the users associated with the third group are each different. (see paragraph 0171-0173, 0180-0184, Figure 17, Examiner’s note: here the terms “singles evening function”, “live streaming”, or “speed dating audio function” merely describe different user queues for their speed dates, for example one that is done in the evening and the preference is single (see Figure 17 and paragraphs 0172-0173), one that done as a speed date for audio chat (see paragraph 0180), and one that is done for live, e.g. with a live web cam (see Figure 17)).
As per claim 4, Janssens teaches
further comprising: generating, by the server, (i) one or more clusters within the first group, (ii) one or more clusters within the second group, and (iii) one or more clusters within the third group, wherein the server generates the one or more clusters for each group based on criteria associated with each of the clusters. (see paragraphs 0171-0173, 0180-0184, Figure 17, Examiner’s note: here the terms “singles evening function”, “live streaming”, or “speed dating audio function” merely describe different user queues for their speed dates, for example one that done in the evening and the preference is single (see Figure 17 and paragraphs 0172-0173), one that done as a speed date for audio chat (see paragraph 0180), and one that is done live, e.g. with a live web cam (see Figure 17). Here teaches groups are different for each individual).
As per claim 5, Janssens teaches
wherein providing the data to the set of client devices for each of the groups indicating the acceptance into the respective function of the virtual lobby further comprises: providing, by the server, first data to each of the client devices associated with the first group indicating the acceptance into the first virtual lobby of the speed dating audio function, the first data causing each of the client devices associated with the first group to display GUI elements related to the speed dating audio function; providing, by the server, second data to each of the client devices associated with the second group indicating the acceptance into the second virtual lobby of the singles evening function, the second data causing each of the client devices associated with the second group to display GUI elements related to the singles evening function; and providing, by the server, third data to each of the client devices associated with the third group indicating the acceptance into the third virtual lobby of the live streaming function, the third data causing each of the client devices associated with the third group to display GUI elements related to the live streaming function. (see paragraph 0171-0173, 0180-0184, Figure 17, Examiner’s note: here the terms “singles evening function”, “live streaming”, or “speed dating audio function” merely describe different user queues for their speed dates, for example one that done in the evening and the preference is single (see Figure 17 and paragraphs 0172-0173), one that done as a speed