PROGRESSIVE VISIBILITY IN A SOCIAL NETWORK

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 Claims This is a final rejection in response to remarks/amendments filed on 06/29/2026. Claims 1, 18, and 20 have been amended. Therefore, Claims 1-4, and 6-21 remain pending and are examined herein. Priority The claims hold priority to provisional application #63/256,853 filed on 2021-10-18. 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 1-4 and 6-11, and 13-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1: Is the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture, or Composition of Matter? Claims 1-4, 6-17: A computer-implemented method Claim 18-19: One or more tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by a processing system, cause the processing system to perform operations Claim 20-21: A computer-implemented system, comprising: one or more computers; and one or more computer memory devices interoperably coupled with the one or more computers and having tangible, non-transitory, machine-readable media storing one or more instructions that, when executed by the one or more computers, cause the one or more computers to perform operations Therefore, the claims are directed to the potentially eligible subject matter categories, since claims 1-4 and 6-17 are directed to a process. Claims 18-21 are directed to an apparatus or manufacture. Therefore the claims are to be further analyzed under step 2 of the 2 step analysis. Step 2a Prong 1: Is the claim reciting a Judicial Exception(A Law of Nature, a Natural Phenomenon (Product of Nature), or An Abstract Idea?) The claims under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification are analyzed herein. Representative claims 1, 18, and 20 are marked up, isolating the abstract idea from additional elements, wherein the abstract idea is in bold and the additional elements have been italicized as follows: Claim 1: A computer-implemented method Claim 18: One or more tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by a processing system, cause the processing system to perform operations Claim 20: A computer-implemented system, comprising: one or more computers; and one or more computer memory devices interoperably coupled with the one or more computers and having tangible, non-transitory, machine-readable media storing one or more instructions that, when executed by the one or more computers, cause the one or more computers to perform operations Claims 1 Body( also representative of claims 18 and 20): identifying a potential match between a first user and a second user, wherein a first profile of the first user is configured in a first mode having a first visibility; providing, to a second client device associated with the second user, the first profile of the first user configured in the first mode; receiving, from the second client device, an indication of approval of the first user; providing, to a first client device associated with the first user, a notification of the indication of approval; preventing establishment of a match between the first user and the second user until the first user reconfigures the first profile from the first mode to a second mode, wherein the first profile in the second mode has a second visibility that is higher than the first visibility; receiving, from the first client device, a reconfiguration of the first profile of the first user to the second mode, in response to receiving the reconfiguration, enabling, on the first client device, activation of a second version of an element configured to be used on the first client device to establish the match between the first user and the second user, wherein the element comprises a first version and the second version stored as separate elements in a database remote from the second client device, the first version being associated with the first mode and being unselectable to establish the match and the second version being associated with the second mode and being selectable to establish the match; and, providing, to the second client device, a profile data element of the first profile, wherein providing the profile data element comprises: Querying the database, the database storing a plurality of elements, wherein each element of the plurality of elements is associated with one or more visibility modes, wherein the plurality of elements comprises the profile data element, and wherein: (i) the profile data element includes, in a header or metadata of the profile data element, a visibility field configured to identify a visibility setting associated with the profile data element, (ii) the plurality of elements are associated with object classes configured to mediate associations between visibility modes and the plurality of elements, or (i) and (ii), based on at least one of the visibility field of the profile data element or object classes of the plurality of elements indicating that the profile data element is associated with the second mode, obtaining, as a result of the query, a subset of the plurality of elements, wherein the subset of the plurality of elements includes the profile data element, and wherein elements of the plurality of elements that are not associated with the second mode are filtered at a server remote from the second client device prior to transmission and are not transmitted to the second client device, and transmitting the subset of the plurality of elements from the server to the second client device. When evaluating the bolded limitations of the claims under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, it is clear that representative claims 1, 18, and 20 are reciting an abstract idea in the category of “certain methods of organizing human activity.” This abstract idea grouping found in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) includes concepts related to “fundamental economic principles or practices,” “commercial or legal interactions,” and “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people.” The present invention falls under “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” which further includes, “social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions” as outlined in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C). The bolded limitations are merely a system that allows people to indicate their approval to other users to allow them to view certain information about themselves. In this breadth of the claim language, steps such as “preventing establishment of a match until the first profile is reconfigured from the first more to a second mode, wherein the first profile in the second has a second visibility that is higher than the first visibility” is merely reciting the facilitation of personal relationships and interactions, as it merely obfuscates user profiles from each other unless higher levels of permission are given. Furthermore, querying a database storing elements associated with one or more visibility modes is still part of the same abstract idea because it merely recited generic data collection, storage, and processing steps, wherein the data is recited with such generality that it is no more than the abstract idea of “managing personal behaviors.” Even when considering the amended elements, particularly that the first user reconfigures the first profile, this is merely managing personal behavior because it is merely a user changing the settings on their own profile to change the visibility mode. Furthermore, the amended element of providing a profile data element of the first profile, wherein providing the profile data element comprises querying a database storing a plurality of elements. This is more of the same abstract idea because it is still facilitating user interactions with another user, and the fact that the user information is queried from a centralized database instead of being sent directly does not put it outside of the “managing personal behavior, interactions, or relationships between people,” because the crux of the action is still a facilitation of interactions and relationships between people. The amendments (i), and (ii), followed by “based on at least one of the visibility field of the profile data element or object classes of the plurality of elements indicating that the profile data element is associated with the second mode, obtaining, as a result of the query, a subset of the plurality of elements, wherein the subset of the plurality of elements includes the profile data element,” still fall within “certain methods of organizing human activity,” because they are no more than a set of rules which dictate the types of personal information and interactions (profile data elements) as user can access based on the accompanying fields in the data storage. Since the broadest reasonable interpretation of the amendments above can also include mere instructions to an individual to perform this database task, the claims do not have enough specificity to be a computer-specific task. For example, the scope of the limitation covers a person, with the help of a pen and paper, writing profile information in a column, and the accompanying the permission level, or categorize the profile elements in an object class. Furthermore, the amended steps are merely claiming rule-based triggers which recite which versions are selectable and unselectable, which merely manages personal behaviors, “the first version being associated with the first mode and being unselectable to establish the match and the second version being associated with the second mode and being selectable to establish the match; Therefore, within the BRI of the claims, they still fall under “managing personal behavior, interactions, or relationships” between people because they are broad enough to encapsulate instructions to an individual to perform the data features. Furthermore, transmitting the plurality of elements is merely outputting the results of the analysis and is still therefore a part of the abstract idea as it is merely conveying information to an individual to manage their personal behavior. The examiner notes that the fact that the claims recite interactions between an individual and a computer does not preclude the claimed activities from falling within “certain methods of organizing human activity.” MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B) states, “Finally, the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping.” Therefore, the limitations are steps which manage relationships between two people, therefore the claims recite the abstract idea of “managing privacy permissions between users.” Step 2A Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? Claims 1, 18, and 20 recite the following additional elements: -computer in claims 1, 18, 20 -tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable media in claims 18, 20 -processing system in claim 18 -computer memory devices in claim 20 -a first and second client device in claims 1, 18, 20 -an element configured to be used on the first client device in claims 1, 18, 20 -database remote from the second client device in claims 1, 18, 20 - wherein the element comprises a first version and the second version stored as separate elements in a database remote from the second client device, in claims 1, 18, 20 - wherein elements of the plurality of elements that are not associated with the second mode are filtered at a server remote from the second client device prior to transmission and are not transmitted to the second client device, in claims 1, 18, 20 - transmitting the subset of the plurality of elements from the server to the second client device in claims 1, 18, 20 The additional elements (a - e) listed above are no more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer on its ordinary capacity. In this case the abstract idea of “managing privacy permissions between users” is being implemented on computers, non-transitory computer readable mediums, processing systems, computer memory devices, client devices, and a remote server. These devices performing the abstract idea are performing functions well within their ordinary capacity as evident in specification [0044], “The system 200 includes a plurality of client devices 202a through 202n in communication with a server 204 (which may represent multiple servers and/or other computer systems in communication with one another) via a network 206, which may be a wired or wireless network or any combination thereof. Each client device 202a through 202n (referred to collectively as client devices 202) includes one or more processors (e.g., central processing unit) 210 in communication with input/output devices 212 via a bus 214. The input/output devices 212 can include a touch display, keyboard, mouse, and the like. A network interface circuit 216 is also connected to the bus 214 to provide wired and/or wireless connectivity to the network 206. A memory or other storage medium 220 is also connected to the bus 214. The memory 220 stores instructions executed by the processor 210. In particular, the memory 220 stores instructions for a social network application 222, such as a dating application, which communicates with server 204 to coordinate interactions between users. In some implementations, each client device 202 is a mobile device (e.g., smartphone, laptop, tablet, wearable device, etc.) executing the social network application 222. Different client devices 202 are operated by different users that subscribe to the same social network application 222.” Since the steps can be performed on any suitable computing device, then the devices are merely structure carrying out the idea, and not a practical application of the abstract idea. There are no improvements to computer functionality or to any technology or technical field, because even the combination of computing components are arranged in a manner that fails to show how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. (See MPEP 2106.05(a)) Furthermore, regarding the newly amended additional elements, the requirement of “wherein the elements of the plurality of elements that are not associated with the second mode are filtered at a server remote from the second client device prior to transmission and are not transmitted to the second client device” does not, by itself, reflect an improvement to server or data-processing technology. Rather, the server is used to enforce the claimed visibility rule (based on at least the visibility field of the profile data element...obtaining a subset of the plurality of elements…), at a level of generality such that it is no more than determining which information the second user is permitted to receive and withholding information that does not satisfy the rule-based triggers. At this level of generality, it is merely performing the abstract idea at a different device or location, without implementing a technological change or improvement in how servers perform filtering. Merely instructing the abstract idea to be performed on the server does not integrate it into a practical application when it uses ordinary computer functionality to apply the claimed visibility criteria before transmitting the permitted information. The applicant has not made it clear how performing the filtering at a remote server necessarily provides a technical improvement to the computers. Likewise, storing the first and second versions as separate database elements does not recite an improvement to database technology or computer functionality. The separate versions correspond to different availability states dictated by the claimed visibility and matching rules, with one version being unavailable for selection in the first mode and the other being unavailable in the second mode. There is no improvement reflected in the claim that would make it apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that an improvement has been made over existing database structures or data retrieval techniques. Since the claims are not meaningfully limited by this claim, as they merely include the element as a feature, this additional element fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, whether considering the additional elements individually or as a combination, the abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application. Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? Claims 1, 18, and 20 recite the following additional elements: -computer in claims 1, 18, 20 -tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable media in claims 18, 20 -processing system in claim 18 -computer memory devices in claim 20 -a first and second client device in claims 1, 18, 20 -an element configured to be used on the first client device in claims 1, 18, 20 -database remote from the second client device in claims 1, 18, 20 - wherein the element comprises a first version and the second version stored as separate elements in a database remote from the second client device, in claims 1, 18, 20 - wherein elements of the plurality of elements that are not associated with the second mode are filtered at a server remote from the second client device prior to transmission and are not transmitted to the second client device, in claims 1, 18, 20 - transmitting the subset of the plurality of elements from the server to the second client device in claims 1, 18, 20 The additional elements above are also not found to include significantly more for the same reasons set forth in the prong 2 rejection. Namely, as supported by MPEP 2106.05(f) and MPEP 2106.05(h) they are merely instructions to perform the abstract idea on a computer, or are a general link to the technological environment of user interfaces. Furthermore, no improvements to the technology or the technological field have been purported as set forth by MPEP 2106.05(a). Since none of the examples of significantly more as outlined in MPEP 2106.05(a) apply to the claimed invention, significantly more has not been found. Even when viewing the claims as a whole, nothing in the claims meaningfully limits the claims such that they recite significantly more than the abstract idea. Regarding dependent claims 2-4, 6-11, 13-17, 19, and 21: Claims 2, 3, 4 further limit what is included by the additional element “element” to include selections of a visibility mode, elements only be found the second mode, and a user input trigger. Since the steps only further limit an additional element, and the abstract idea remains unchanged, the claims still recite an abstract idea. Furthermore, the additional elements “element” are still general links to user interface technology. All of the examples of elements in the context of user interfaces are still using features that have been part of the technological field of interfaces for a long time. No improvements to the technological field of interfaces have been purported, nor improvements to devices that carry out these functions, as outlined in MPEP 2106.05(a). Therefore, the claims are still directed to an abstract without a practical application or significantly more. Claim 6 adds the additional step of changing a visibility mode for the second user, while claim 7 allows the visibility mode to apply to all users viewing their profile. This is still “certain methods of organizing human activity” particularly “managing personal behavior or interactions between individuals,” wherein the managing of personal behavior is the user is able to select how much of their personal information is being shared. In combination with the claims they depend on, they are more of the same abstract idea. Furthermore, the additional “a third user-device” has been included, which is still mere instructions to perform the abstract idea on a computer as outlined in MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, this does not provide for integration into a practical application nor provide significantly more, and claims 6 and 7 remain patent ineligible. Claim 9 adds the additional step of not allowing a user to approve a match until they reveal more information about themselves. Claim 8 adds the additional step of allowing the second user to increase their visibility level for the first user even before an indication of approval. These are still “certain methods of organizing human activity” particularly “managing personal behavior or interactions between individuals,” wherein the managing of interactions is the rules given the users to limit how they conduct their interactions. Giving the users a certain sequence of options in order to conduct an interaction is an example of these rules. In combination with the claims they depend on, they are more of the same abstract idea. Furthermore, the additional element ‘user-interactive interface’ has been included in claim 8, which is still a general link to the technological field of interfaces as outlined in MPEP 2106.05(h). Therefore, this does not provide for integration into a practical application nor provide significantly more, and claims 8 and 9 remain patent ineligible. Claim 10 adds a third level of visibility, which is more of the same abstract idea of “managing privacy permissions between users” because adding different levels does not meaningfully change the overall concept to no longer be an abstract idea. Furthermore, there are no additional elements, therefore, this does not provide for integration into a practical application nor provide significantly more. Claims 11 and 16 provides additional steps geared towards implementing obfuscation methods in line with the visibility modes set forth in the claims it depends on. The concept of obfuscating identifiable information is simply an abstract idea with regards to “managing personal behavior or interactions between people” as outlined in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(c). The concept of “blurring a targeted portion of a photo or video of the first profile, the targeted portion corresponding to a face, to obtain a blurred photo or video,” still falls within “certain methods of organizing human activity,” because within its scope it can still be interpreted to be more than a set of instructions to an individual to blur an image based on a particular visibility mode. The act or idea of blurring an image is not limited to technical implementation because it encapsulates such a wide scope of possibilities in blurring an image, (one example is physically scratching it out with a pen). Therefore, the additional element of “applying computer vision” to blur...is merely an “apply it” level element because it is no more than a set of instructions to perform the abstract idea on a general purpose computer. Since the steps merely implement “computer vision” without any specific steps which meaningfully limits its use on the abstract idea, it is no more than a general link to the field. There are no accompanying improvements to the technical field or to computer functionality in general because using a computer to blur an image is well within its ordinary capacity to perform an economic or other task (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)). Therefore the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor do they provide significantly more. Claim 13 merely indicates that the second visibility level is higher than the first visibility level as it provides more personal identifiable information(PII). Providing more PII in higher permission modes is still “certain methods of organizing human activity” particularly “managing personal behavior or interactions between individuals” since it simply manages how much information users can share in their interactions with other people. Therefore, it is more of the same abstract idea as set forth in the independent claim rejections. Furthermore, there are no additional elements, therefore, this does not provide for integration into a practical application nor provide significantly more. Claim 14 adds the additional step of performing the reconfiguration upon the performance of a “tap and hold” input. Performing the reconfiguration is more of the same abstract idea outlined in the independent claims. The tap and hold input is simply an additional element which is a general link to graphical user interface technology. Please see MPEP 2106.05(h) for more information regarding general links to technological environments or fields of use. Since tap and hold is a feature in the field of interfaces and it does not meaningfully limit the abstract idea, the additional elements still do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor do they provide significantly more. Claim 15, 19, and 21 add the additional step of determining a first media communication type that is allowed in a second mode, a communication type that is disallowed in a second mode, an interface element configured to transmit a message of the first communication type, and a communication interface excluding a second interface element. When considering that the BRI of “communication type,” does not necessarily limit the scope of the invention to technological processes, it is clear that this is still a recitation of “managing personal behavior, interactions, or relationships” between people. This is merely a rule-based feature of which types of communication can occur in a particular mode. The additional element of it being a “communication interface” comprising a first interface element, or “excluding a second interface element,” is merely an “apply it” level element as it merely using interfaces in their ordinary capacity to carry out economic or other tasks (interface to transmit information). Therefore, since the claims do not improve computer interface technology, or recite the claim with enough particularity, whether considered individually or in combination, the claims still fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Even when viewed as a whole, nothing meaningfully limits the abstract idea to be significantly more. Claim 17 merely adds the steps of a livestream being not visible to a user in the first mode, but visible to a user in the second mode. Even when viewing the claim as a whole, the claims are still part of “managing personal behavior, interactions, or relationships” because it claims the idea of the livestream not being visible in a first mode, without claiming a particular technological implementation that actually restricts the users from accessing the livestream based on a mode. This is merely a rule-based interaction, when interpreted in its BRI in view of the specification, which still falls under “Certain methods of organizing human activity. Even when considering the additional element of it being a “livestream” this is merely “apply it” as it still using generic computing components after the fact to perform the existing process. Whether considered individually or in combination, the claims still fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Even when viewed as a whole, nothing meaningfully limits the abstract idea to be significantly more. Claim 12 would be eligible over 35 U.S.C. 101 if claim 1 was amended to include the entirety of claim 12. Reasons for eligibility over 35 U.S.C. 101 for claim 12: -When considering claim 12 in combination with the teachings of claim 1, the additional element of “applying a voice identification algorithm to distort a targeted portion of an audio transmission corresponding to the first user, the targeted portion corresponding to a voice, to obtain a distorted audio transmission; presenting the distorted audio transmission based on the first profile being configured in the first mode; and presenting the audio transmission with less distortion than the distorted audio transmission based on the first profile being configured in the second mode” recites a combination of additional elements that meaningfully limit the claims such that they are significantly more than the abstract idea. Because the transmission of distorted audio, based on particular permissions, in the field of dating app/social networking is an unconventional step that confines the claim to a particular useful application of performing matchmaking without providing any identifiable characteristics, then the well-understood, routine, conventional activity consideration favors eligibility. The “voice identification algorithm” being used to distort the audio is more than “insignificant extra-solution activity,” because it is integral to the technical solution itself and not merely a pre-solution or post-solution activity. This is unlike claim 11, wherein the use of computers to blur an image is “apply it” because the idea of blurring an image is part of the abstract idea. In contrast, for claim 12, the extent to which the computer aids the method is clear because the claim is more than merely invoking computer to perform an existing process, because the distortion of a voice in audio and transmitting such audio over a network based on security permissions is not part of the abstract idea, and specifically requires computer implementation. Therefore, claim 12 in combination with the amended claim 1 is patent eligible over 35 U.S.C. 101 because it meaningfully limits the claims such that it is significantly more than the abstract idea. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-4, 6-21 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The presently cited best prior art of record is, Bhat et al. (US 20190236722 A1) hereinafter Bhat, in view of Winters et al. (US 10659299 B1) hereinafter Winters. While Bhat has been cited to teach: -identifying a potential match between a first user and a second user, (Bhat [0014]) -wherein a first profile of the first user is configured in a first mode having a first visibility; (Bhat [0060]) Bhat’s public profile for the first user and “a card with the user’s public information” is mapped to the first mode having a first visibility. -providing, to a second client device associated with the second user, the first profile of the first user configured in the first mode; (Bhat [0076]) -receiving, from the second client device, an indication of approval of the first user; (Bhat [0063] A like of the public profile content of the second user is received from the first user (410).) In Bhat, Bhat’s first user is mapped to the claim’s second user and vice versa. A “like” is an indication of approval. -providing, to a first client device associated with the first user, a notification of the indication of approval; (Bhat [0063]) -preventing establishment of the match between the first user and the second user until the first user reconfigures the first profile from the first mode to a second mode, (Bhat [0042] [0077]) - wherein the first profile in the second mode has a second visibility that is higher than the first visibility;(Bhat [0061]) -receiving, from the first client device, a reconfiguration of the first profile of the first user to a second mode, (Bhat [0060]) -and in response to receiving the reconfiguration, enabling, on the first client device, activation of an element configured to be used on the first client device to establish a match between the first user and the second user; and (Bhat [0008]) -providing, to the second client device, a profile data element of the first profile,(Bhat [0064]) - wherein each element of the plurality of elements is associated with one or more visibility modes,(Bhat [0063]) - Obtaining a subset of the plurality of elements, wherein the subset of the plurality of elements includes the profile data element, and(Bhat [0062] [0063] [0043]) - transmitting the subset of the plurality of elements from the server to the second client device.(Bhat [0008] [0055] [0045] [0063]) Alternatively, Winters teaches: -querying the database, the database storing a plurality of elements, wherein the plurality of elements comprises the profile data element, and wherein: (Winters [Col. 8 Lines 38-45] As an example and not by way of limitation, a user may provide his or her name, profile picture, contact information, birth date, sex, marital status, family status, employment, education background, preferences, interests, or other demographic information. In particular embodiments, a user node 202 may be associated with one or more data objects corresponding to information associated with a user. [Col. 12 Lines 49-60] Privacy settings associated with an object may specify any suitable granularity of permitted access or denial of access. As an example and not by way of limitation, access or denial of access may be specified for particular users (e.g., only me, my roommates, my boss), users within a particular degrees-of-separation (e.g., friends, friends-of-friends), user groups (e.g., the gaming club, my family), user networks (e.g., employees of particular employers, students or alumni of particular university), all users (“public”), no users (“private”), users of third-party systems 170, particular applications (e.g., third-party applications, external websites), other suitable entities, or any suitable combination thereof. [Col. 13 Lines 21-39] In particular embodiments, one or more servers 162 may be authorization/privacy servers for enforcing privacy settings. In response to a request from a user (or other entity) for a particular object stored in a data store 164, the social-networking system 160 may send a request to the data store 164 for the object. The request may identify the user associated with the request and the object may be sent only to the user (or a client system 130 of the user) if the authorization server determines that the user is authorized to access the object based on the privacy settings associated with the object. If the requesting user is not authorized to access the object, the authorization server may prevent the requested object from being retrieved from the data store 164 or may prevent the requested object from be sent to the user. In the search-query context, an object may be provided as a search result only if the querying user is authorized to access the object, e.g., the privacy settings for the object allow it to be surfaced to, discovered by, or otherwise visible to the querying user.) Winters’ data object is mapped to “profile data element,” because each data objects corresponds to information associated with a user. - (i) the profile data element includes, in a header or metadata of the profile data element, a visibility field configured to identify a visibility setting associated with the profile data element, (ii) the plurality of elements are associated with object classes configured to mediate associations between visibility modes and the plurality of elements, or (i) and (ii), (Winters [Col. 11 Lines 39-58] Although the examples discussed herein are in the context of an online social network, these privacy settings may be applied to any other suitable computing system. Privacy settings (or “access settings”) for an object may be stored in any suitable manner, such as, for example, in association with the object, in an index on an authorization server, in another suitable manner, or any suitable combination thereof. A privacy setting for an object may specify how the object (or particular information associated with the object) can be accessed, stored, or otherwise used (e.g., viewed, shared, modified, copied, executed, surfaced, or identified) within the online social network. When privacy settings for an object allow a particular user or other entity to access that object, the object may be described as being “visible” with respect to that user or other entity. As an example and not by way of limitation, a user of the online social network may specify privacy settings for a user-profile page that identify a set of users that may access work-experience information on the user-profile page, thus excluding other users from accessing that information.) Winter’s storing the privacy settings for each object in association with the object, in an index on the server satisfies the limitation because Winter’s “object” is a profile data element, and storing it in association with the object satisfies (ii), and storing it in an index satisfied (i). based on at least one of the visibility field of the profile data element or object classes of the plurality of elements indicating that the profile data element is associated with the second mode, obtaining, as a result of the query, a subset of the plurality of elements, wherein the subset of the plurality of elements includes the profile data element,(Winters [Col. 13 Lines 21-57] In particular embodiments, one or more servers 162 may be authorization/privacy servers for enforcing privacy settings. In response to a request from a user (or other entity) for a particular object stored in a data store 164, the social-networking system 160 may send a request to the data store 164 for the object. The request may identify the user associated with the request and the object may be sent only to the user (or a client system 130 of the user) if the authorization server determines that the user is authorized to access the object based on the privacy settings associated with the object. If the requesting user is not authorized to access the object, the authorization server may prevent the requested object from being retrieved from the data store 164 or may prevent the requested object from be sent to the user. In the search-query context, an object may be provided as a search result only if the querying user is authorized to access the object, e.g., the privacy settings for the object allow it to be surfaced to, discovered by, or otherwise visible to the querying user... If the privacy settings for the object do not allow it to be surfaced to, discovered by, or visible to the user, the object may be excluded from the search results.) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to modify Bhat by adding the teachings of Winter’s, particularly, the search-query of database, and the storage systems which store a privacy setting associated with each data object. By using these data technique of Winter in Bhat’s matchmaking program, one would arrive at the limitations at hand, because Bhat’s profile information also has public/private settings associated with each element of profile information. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the combination because of Winters’ benefit of increasing the security and efficiency of controlling a user’s information. (Winters [Col. 1 Lines 61-64] he content-update workflow may provide the first user an interface for systematically and efficiently controlling such visibility in ways customizable to fit the first user's specific goals.) However, neither Bhat nor Winters teach or suggest: -wherein the element comprises a first version and the second version stored as separate elements in a database remote from the second client device, the first version being associated with the first mode and being unselectable to establish the match and the second version being associated with the second mode and being selectable to establish the match; -wherein elements of the plurality of elements that are not associated with the second mode are filtered at a server remote from the second client device prior to transmission and are not transmitted to the second client device, Therefore, since even a hypothetical combination of Bhat and Winters would fail to teach each and every limitation of amended claim 1, and none of the prior art of record would remedy the deficiencies above, even after an updated search and consideration, the claims distinguish over the prior art of record. The amendment of the first version associated with a first mode being unselectable to establish the match, and the second version associated with the second mode to establish the match, are the defining features which distinguish over the prior art because within the context of the claims as a whole, it requires a specific location, versioning, and selectability features that are not taught by any hypothetical combination of prior art references. For the same reasons provided above, claims 18 and 20 are also distinguished over the prior art. By virtue of their dependency on claims 1, 18 or 20, claims 2-4, 6-17, 19, and 21 also distinguish over the prior art and would be allowable if the claims are amended to overcome the rejections over 35 U.S.C. 101. Claim 12 distinguishes over the prior art, and is allowable over 35 U.S.C. 101, therefore, claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 06/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding applicant’s remarks under 35 U.S.C. 101, the applicant’s remarks have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the following reasons. The applicant asserts that the claims are not directed to merely “managing personal behavior or relationships,” but “improve the functioning of server-client architectures by reciting a specific server-side element filtering mechanism that enforces visibility-mode-based access control at the data layer prior to network transmission, thereby reducing the attack surface for data security violations such as packet interception.” However, even when considering the amended claim language, it would not be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that the claims reflect the alleged improvement. The requirement that elements not associated with the second mode are filtered at a server prior to transmission and are not transmitted to the second client device does not, by itself, reflect an improvement to server or data-processing technology. Therefore, the applicant’s argument that “visibility-mode enforcement is structural embedded into the data storage, element retrieval and network transmission pipeline” is not persuasive because the server is merely used to enforce the claimed visibility rule by determining which information the second user is permitted to receive and withholding information that does not satisfy that rule. The claim does not recite a technological change in how the server performs filtering. Instead, it uses ordinary computer functionality to apply the claimed visibility criteria before transmitting the permitted information. Therefore, the applicant’s argument of an improvement over “wastes (in) network transmission resources and creates data security vulnerabilities” are not improvement because it is merely an inherent result of transmitting less information. Though the claims recite “elements not associated with the second mode are filtered at the server prior to transmission and are not transmitted to the second client device,” the applicant’s argument that this is not an “abstract rule” is not persuasive because it is merely a rule deciding which data should and should not be sent based on the versions. Furthermore, the specification’s [0098] citation does not make it apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that an improvement to any technological field has been made, because while it is true that transmitting less data does not use as much resources, the claims have not improved computer functionality or a technological field such that less resources are used. Server’s within the context of social media, inherently filter at least some of the interface elements and data being transmitted to users, evident in the way that only some forms of content are transmitted to social media users, not the entirety of all information ever presented on the website. Therefore, server-side filtering “preventing data from ever transversing the network, eliminating the window of vulnerability to interception” is not a persuasive argument because transmitted less data over a network is not an improvement to computer functionality. Therefore, even in view of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, which is merely an extension of MPEP 2106.04 and 2106.05, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because the specific steps provided for how “visibility-mode enforcement is achieved,” is still not reflective of an improvement over the computing arts. Therefore, the claims 1-4, 6-11, and 13-21 are not eligible over 35 U.S.C. 101. The examiner notes however, that claim 12 does contain eligible subject matter, and would overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 if claim 1 was amended to include every limitation from claim 12. Regarding applicant’s arguments over 35 U.S.C. 103, the applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive for the following reasons. The examiner agrees with the applicant argument’s that Bhat’s “share private content” is a single interface element that appears after a mutual like, it is not one of multiple versions of the same element stored as separate database objects with different selectability behaviors tied to different visibility modes.” Furthermore, the examiner agrees with the assertion that “Winters’ access control operates on content objects such as posts, photos, and profile data, but Winters does not disclose storing multiple versions of the same interface element as separate elements in a database, where each version has different functional behavior – one version being unselectable and another being selectable to perform a match-establishment operation – based on association with different visibility modes.” Therefore, the applicant’s argument that Bhat and Winters, even as a hypothetical combination fail to disclose each and every feature of claims 1, 18 and 20, particularly the amended limitations “storing a first version and a second version of a match-establishment element as separate elements in a database, the first version being associated with a first mode and being unselectable to establish the match and the second version being associated with a second mode and being selectable to establish a match, where the appropriate version is identified and provided based on the user’s visibility mode configuration. Therefore, claims 1-4, 6-21 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 NICO LAUREN PADUA whose telephone number is (703)756-1978. The examiner can normally be reached Mon to Fri: 8:30 to 5:00pm. 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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at (571) 270-3445. 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. /NICO L PADUA/ Junior Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626 /JESSICA LEMIEUX/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626