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 non-final rejection in response to remarks/amendments filed on 01/15/2026. Claims 1-3, 11, 12, 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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/15/2026 has been entered.
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 an element configured to be used on the first client device to establish the match between the first user and the second user, and,
providing, to the second client device, a profile data element of the first profile, wherein providing the profile data element comprises:
Querying a database remote from the second client device, 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
transmitting the subset of the plurality of elements from a server remote from the second client device 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 steps after are merely claiming the idea of querying the database to find the profile information based on the visibility field and outputting the data. There are no technical database steps or features to enforce the rule. 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
- transmitting the subset of the plurality of elements from a server remote from the second client device 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))
The additional element “element configured to be used” is merely a general link to a particular technological environment or field of use as outlined in MPEP 2106.05(h). This element refers to an interface element, which is a common word used to refer to any feature on an interface that allows users to interact with the interface. Therefore, this is an example of generally linking the abstract idea to the field of “graphical user interfaces.” 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?
The additional elements listed above are repeated as follows:
-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
- transmitting the subset of the plurality of elements from a server remote from the second client device 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, 6-17, 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.
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.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10, 13, 18, & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhat et al. (US 20190236722 A1) hereinafter Bhat, in view of Winters et al. (US 10659299 B1) hereinafter Winters.
Regarding Claims 1, 18, and 20:
Claim 1 : A computer-implemented method (Bhat [0046] The dating application server system 102 may be a system that provides the dating application to users via a personal device over the network. To do so, the dating application server system 102 performs processes that provide the various services related to dating and/or matchmaking in accordance with various aspects disclosed herein.)
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 (Bhat [0055] Also advantageously connected operatively to the processor(s) 205 through the bus system 212 are one or more internal or external mass storage devices 220, and a network interface 222. The mass storage device(s) 220 may be, or may include, any conventional medium for storing large volumes of data in a non-volatile manner, such as one or more solid state, magnetic, or optical based disks. The network interface 222 provides the processing system 200 with the ability to communicate with remote devices (e.g., storage servers) over a network, and may be, for example, an Ethernet adapter, a Fiber Channel adapter, or the like.)
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(Bhat [0046] The dating application server system 102 may be a system that provides the dating application to users via a personal device over the network. To do so, the dating application server system 102 performs processes that provide the various services related to dating and/or matchmaking in accordance with various aspects disclosed herein. Dating application server system 102 may include one or more servers, routers, computer systems, and/or memory systems that are communicatively connected via an internal network to perform the dating application management processes and provide the dating application to users. [0052] Processing system 200 includes one or more processors 205 in operative communication with memory 210 and coupled to a bus system 212.)
Claims 1, 18 & 20 :
-identifying a potential match between a first user and a second user, (Bhat [0014] In a fifth aspect of the disclosed system, the dating application may optionally find potential matches based on a request by the user for a particular personality types as determined based on a personality test. To do so, the dating application server system receives a request for a particular personality type for potential matches from a user, searches profiles of all users for users having the requested personality type; and provides a list of potential matches to the user, the list of potential matches including users that have a personality type that matches the particular personality type.)
-wherein a first profile of the first user is configured in a first mode having a first visibility; (Bhat [0060] FIG. 3 illustrates a screen shot of a profile of a user of the dating the application. Profile 300 includes public content 305 and private content 310, 315. The public information may be text, video and/or audio content that generally conveys the interests, likes, dislikes and other relevant information about the user. [0077] The process receives a request to view the full profile (or at least more than just the public profile of the first user) of the first user from a second user in the group (925).[0073] Tapping on the user profile picture can display a profile video of the user (e.g., a trailer) and pop a card with the user's public information.) 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] The process provides selected profile information of the first user to each user in the determined group (920). The selected information is only basic information that may give a viewer insight into the attributes or traits of the user. For example, the selected information may include age, height, weight, occupation, and/or favorite activities. [0062] A process performed by the dating application server system to provide public and private content is shown in FIG. 4. The process 400 may be begin by providing public profile information of a second user to a first user (405). In accordance with some embodiments, the public profile content may be selected information from the profile of the second user. In accordance with some other embodiments, the public profile content may be a separate profile or portion of a profile of the second user. The public profile content may be textual, video and/or audio content in the various different embodiments)
-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] In response to the like of the first user liking the public profile content of the second user, a notification of the like is sent to the second user. The notification may be a message provided to the second user's account in the data application system in some embodiments.)
-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] The disclosed system provides a dating app with private videos or other content (e.g., audio, text, etc.) that is shown to users only after mutual like between users. [0060] As indicated above, the public religious belief of a person might be associated with one's family but the privately held belief of the person may be included in the private content that is shared only after mutual likes of two users are established. [0077] The process receives a request to view the full profile (or at least more than just the public profile of the first user) of the first user from a second user in the group (925). The process provides the request including selected profile information of the second user to the first user (930) and receives an approval or acceptance of the second user from the first user (935). The process then allows the second user access to at least more than the public profile or more preferably the full profile information of the first user (940) and the first user full access to the at least more than the public profile (or the full profile) information of the second user (945).) Since the app only allows users to view private profiles (second mode), “only after” matching, then the limitation has been taught by Bhat. The limitation “first user reconfigures the first profile...” is taught in [0077], wherein this case, the claim’s first user is mapped to Bhat’s second user. And Bhat’s second user is reconfiguring their own profile by approving or accepting the request in step (935).
- wherein the first profile in the second mode has a second visibility that is higher than the first visibility;(Bhat [0061] The private content may be saved as a virtual folded letter format in that the user can choose to save their private information in letter forms and choose to reveal a portion or all or specific letter to the other match(es) as intended to save dating fatigue. It could also be helpful in sharing specific skills related info like maybe poetry or other sections like adventure/travel/art/music related categories based virtual letters which can be used to share with a particular second user matched with the first user when required. This could be used after both users are matched by mutual like and shared or when they chat with each other.) Public information is a first visibility mode that has less information that “private information” which is the second visibility mode that has more visibility.
-receiving, from the first client device, a reconfiguration of the first profile of the first user to a second mode, (Bhat [0060] As indicated above, the public religious belief of a person might be associated with one's family but the privately held belief of the person may be included in the private content that is shared only after mutual likes of two users are established. [0064] If there is a mutual like, the system allows the first user to access the private profile content of the second user (425) and the first user to access the private content of the second user (430). In accordance with some embodiments, the private profile content may be select information from the profile of a user. In accordance with some other embodiments, the private profile content may be a separate profile or portion of a profile of a user. The public private content may be textual, video and/or audio content in the various different embodiments.
-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] Optionally, it is also contemplated that the system may provide private content of the first user to the second user after the system receives the like and acceptance and also after first user chooses to share the private content of the first user, and vice versa. The first user may choose to share the private content of the first user by selecting a share private content button displayed by the system on a screen. [0060] As indicated above, the public religious belief of a person might be associated with one's family but the privately held belief of the person may be included in the private content that is shared only after mutual likes of two users are established. [0061] This could be used after both users are matched by mutual like and shared or when they chat with each other.) Bhat’s share private content button, which is only enabled after receiving a like from the second user is an example of “activation of an element” to establish a match. We know from [0060], and [0061] that a mutual like is established after the first user accepts the second user and vice versa.
-providing, to the second client device, a profile data element of the first profile,(Bhat [0064] If there is a mutual like, the system allows the first user to access the private profile content of the second user (425) and the first user to access the private content of the second user (430). In accordance with some embodiments, the private profile content may be select information from the profile of a user. In accordance with some other embodiments, the private profile content may be a separate profile or portion of a profile of a user. The public private content may be textual, video and/or audio content in the various different embodiments.) “Private profile content” falls within the scope of “profile data element of the first profile.”
- wherein each element of the plurality of elements is associated with one or more visibility modes,(Bhat [0063] In some embodiments, the public profile content may be selected information the profile of the first user. In some other embodiments, the public profile information may be a link to a public profile or a public portion of a profile of the first user. [0064] In accordance with some embodiments, the private profile content may be select information from the profile of a user. In accordance with some other embodiments, the private profile content may be a separate profile or portion of a profile of a user.) It is clear that each profile content either has a “public information,” or “private information,” label, but Bhat does not explicitly teach how this is stored or queried in a database.
- Obtaining a subset of the plurality of elements, wherein the subset of the plurality of elements includes the profile data element, and(Bhat [0062] A process performed by the dating application server system to provide public and private content is shown in FIG. 4. The process 400 may be begin by providing public profile information of a second user to a first user (405). In accordance with some embodiments, the public profile content may be selected information from the profile of the second user. In accordance with some other embodiments, the public profile content may be a separate profile or portion of a profile of the second user. [0063] In some other embodiments, the notification may be an e-mail, SMS message, or some other type of message sent to an account associated with the second user. The notification includes public profile content of the first user. In some embodiments, the public profile content may be selected information the profile of the first user. In some other embodiments, the public profile information may be a link to a public profile or a public portion of a profile of the first user. [0043] Another aspect of the disclosed system is to share single status (without name mentioned just with basic profile information like age, education, job etc.) of a user to other users in a predefined geographical area such as, but not limited to, a mile radius so as to be discovered/encountered by other potential single users in the area based on GPS location.) Obtaining the public portion of profile content falls within the scope of “obtaining a subset of the plurality of elements.” Any of these plurality of elements satisfies “the profile data element.”
- transmitting the subset of the plurality of elements from a server remote from the second client device to the second client device.(Bhat [0008] In response to receiving the like and the acceptance, the dating application server system may provide access to private content in the profile of the first user to the second user and provides access to private content in a profile of the second user to the first user. [0055] The network interface 222 provides the processing system 200 with the ability to communicate with remote devices (e.g., storage servers) [0045] Turning now to the drawings, FIG. 1 illustrates a system 100 for providing an on-line dating application. The system 100 includes a dating application server system 102; social media server system 104; third party application server system 106; and user devices 120 and 125 that are communicatively connected by a network 110. [0063] The notification may be a message provided to the second user's account in the data application system in some embodiments. In some other embodiments, the notification may be an e-mail, SMS message, or some other type of message sent to an account associated with the second user. The notification includes public profile content of the first user.) Sending a notification from the server ( which we know to be remote from the client devices in [0055]), satisfies the transmitting step.
However, Bhat fails to teach or suggest:
-querying a database remote from the second client device, the database storing a plurality of elements,
- 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,
Alternatively, Winters teaches:
-querying a database remote from the second client device, 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.) Since Winters, obtaining of a subset of objects is based on the visibility settings associated with the object, and the privacy mode accessible by the searching user, Winters suggests the feature above.
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.)
Regarding Claim 2:
The combination of Bhat and Winters teaches or suggests the The computer-implemented method of claim 1,
Furthermore, Bhat teaches:
-wherein the element configured to be used to establish the match is stored in the database and is associated with the second mode.(Bhat [0080] The search of other stored information may be from meta data or descriptions used in pictures associated with the user or even recognition of pictures or places based on geographical markers in the photo itself. If the search is of the user's social media, smartphone text or user's email, then the system may request access to those accounts and the user must give the system permission to search those accounts for common interests and store them in a database in the system associated with the user. [0008] Optionally, it is also contemplated that the system may provide private content of the first user to the second user after the system receives the like and acceptance and also after first user chooses to share the private content of the first user, and vice versa. The first user may choose to share the private content of the first user by selecting a share private content button displayed by the system on a screen. [0061] The private content may be saved as a virtual folded letter format in that the user can choose to save their private information in letter forms and choose to reveal a portion or all or specific letter to the other match(es) as intended to save dating fatigue. It could also be helpful in sharing specific skills related info like maybe poetry or other sections like adventure/travel/art/music related categories based virtual letters which can be used to share with a particular second user matched with the first user when required. This could be used after both users are matched by mutual like and shared or when they chat with each other.) Both the private content saves as a virtual folded letter format, and the button for sharing content satisfy “element configured to be used to establish the match.” It is obvious that these elements are stored in a database in Bhat and associated with a second mode (private information).
Regarding Claim 3:
The combination of Bhat and Winters teaches or suggests the The computer-implemented method of claim 2,
-wherein the element is associated with the second mode and not associated with the first mode. (Bhat [0059] A notification is then sent to second user. The notification may include information from the first user's public profile or a link to the first user's public profile. The second user then inputs an ‘accept’ of the first user. The system then allows the first user and second user to view the private profiles or private profile information of each other and communications between the two users may be established. [0008] Optionally, it is also contemplated that the system may provide private content of the first user to the second user after the system receives the like and acceptance and also after first user chooses to share the private content of the first user, and vice versa. The first user may choose to share the private content of the first user by selecting a share private content button displayed by the system on a screen.) The “accept” or “share private content button,” is only available when the other user has already sent a like.
Regarding Claim 4:
The combination of Bhat and Winters teaches or suggests the The computer-implemented method of claim 1,
-wherein the element comprises at least one of a user interface element or a response to a user input trigger. (Bhat [0008] The first user may choose to share the private content of the first user by selecting a share private content button displayed by the system on a screen. [0064] The second user may then input a ‘like’ or an acceptance to the ‘like’ of the first user. [0059] The first user inputs a ‘like’ or other positive signal of the second user's public profile. A notification is then sent to second user. The notification may include information from the first user's public profile or a link to the first user's public profile. The second user then inputs an ‘accept’ of the first user.)
Regarding Claim 6:
The combination of Bhat and Winters teaches or suggests the The computer-implemented method of claim 1,
-wherein the reconfiguration of the first profile to the second mode is with respect to the second user, (Bhat [0064] If there is a mutual like, the system allows the first user to access the private profile content of the second user (425) and the first user to access the private content of the second user (430). In accordance with some embodiments, the private profile content may be select information from the profile of a user. In accordance with some other embodiments, the private profile content may be a separate profile or portion of a profile of a user. The public private content may be textual, video and/or audio content in the various different embodiments. After mutual access is granted or if a mutual like is not received, the process 400 ends.) The BRI of this limitation requires that the reconfiguration is for the second user, so since Bhat teaches that the private profile is only shared between two users when a mutual like is provided, Bhat teaches this limitation.
and wherein the method further comprises:
-subsequent to receiving the reconfiguration of the first profile to the second mode, providing, to a third user-device associated with a third user, the first profile of the first user configured in the first mode. (Bhat [0073] In accordance with another aspect of the disclosed dating application system, another feature to reduce dating fatigue is a discovery mode. In a discovery mode, a first user makes selected information from their profile available to other users within a predefined area near the user. A second user may see the selected information and ‘like the profile of the first user. In response to the like, the system provides selected information from the profile of the second user to the first user. The first user may ‘like’ or ‘accept’ the second user. When both user have like or accepted each other, the system may make the full profile of each user available to the other and/or establishes communication via message or some other mode between the users. The vicinity of the user's location may be shown in a virtual map which may or may not correspond to a real geographical location but could be an approximation. The user may be given the option to hide the user's location for privacy reasons. The user may activate the hide option by depressing a hide selection on a display. If a map is used, then the user profile picture can be used as a marker on the map. Tapping on the user profile picture can display a profile video of the user (e.g., a trailer) and pop a card with the user's public information. The number of users to connect using this discovery mode could be made limited to a certain number. If the user would like to increase or be added then the user could pay for such service using a credit card or virtual currency. This is more of an instantaneous live dating scenario making it easy to connect and save time. The public profile shown about the person in the vicinity could also include the Myer Briggs type indicator which is MBTI personality type.) In this excerpt above, the first and second user are matched and the first profile is configured to the second mode for the second user. Then, more other users can still view the user’s public information through a card, but it only shows the first mode. Therefore, the limitation is satisfied because any of the other users on the platform are a third user that see the first profile in the first mode.
Regarding Claim 7:
The combination of Bhat and Winters teaches or suggests the The computer-implemented method of claim 1,
However, Bhat fails to teach:
-wherein the reconfiguration of the first profile to the second mode is a global reconfiguration, and wherein the method further comprises: subsequent to receiving the reconfiguration of the first profile to the second mode, providing, to a third user-device associated with a third user, the first profile of the first user configured in the second mode. (Bhat [0073] In accordance with another aspect of the disclosed dating application system, another feature to reduce dating fatigue is a discovery mode. In a discovery mode, a first user makes selected information from their profile available to other users within a predefined area near the user. [0094] In yet another aspect of the disclosed system, a dating application server system allows a user to post live media content to a selected group of users. The live media content may be text, video, and/or audio content. The users may be a group of friends, a group of suitors, or a group including a combination of friends and suitors. [0075] The process determines a group of users that are within a predetermined proximity to the first user (915). The predefined proximity may be 5 miles, 4 miles, 3 miles, 2 miles, 1 mile or 100 feet in various embodiments of the system. In some embodiments, the predetermined proximity may be within a predefined area proximate the user.) The discovery mode makes selected information available to users within a predefined area, satisfies the limitation because the BRI of “global” in view of the specification does not refer to the users all over the world, but to all the users of the social network. (Instant specification [057] In some implementations, instead of or in addition to global or user-specific visibility mode settings, visibility mode can be set for one or more groups of users.)
Regarding Claim 8:
The combination of Bhat and Winters teaches or suggests the The computer-implemented method of claim 1,
Furthermore, Bhat teaches:
-comprising, prior to receiving the indication of approval of the first user: receiving, from the second client device, a reconfiguration of a second profile of the second user to have an increased visibility; (Bhat [0063] The notification includes public profile content of the first user. In some embodiments, the public profile content may be selected information the profile of the first user. In some other embodiments, the public profile information may be a link to a public profile or a public portion of a profile of the first user.) Bhat’s link to a public profile is “an increased visibility” because though it is still the first mode (public information), the visibility has been increased from no visibility to partial visibility.
-and in response to receiving the reconfiguration of the second profile of the second user, providing, to the second client device, a user-interactive interface configured to be used to provide the indication of approval of the first user. (Bhat [0008] Optionally, it is also contemplated that the system may provide private content of the first user to the second user after the system receives the like and acceptance and also after first user chooses to share the private content of the first user, and vice versa. The first user may choose to share the private content of the first user by selecting a share private content button displayed by the system on a screen. [0077] The process receives a request to view the full profile (or at least more than just the public profile of the first user) of the first user from a second user in the group (925). The process provides the request including selected profile information of the second user to the first user (930) and receives an approval or acceptance of the second user from the first user (935).)
Regarding Claim 10:
The combination of Bhat and Winters teaches or suggests the The computer-implemented method of claim 1,
Furthermore, Bhat teaches:
-receiving, from the first client device, a second reconfiguration of the first profile of the first user from the second mode to a third mode, wherein the first profile in the third mode has a third visibility that is higher than the second visibility. (Bhat[0061] The private content may be saved as a virtual folded letter format in that the user can choose to save their private information in letter forms and choose to reveal a portion or all or specific letter to the other match(es) as intended to save dating fatigue. It could also be helpful in sharing specific skills related info like maybe poetry or other sections like adventure/travel/art/music related categories based virtual letters which can be used to share with a particular second user matched with the first user when required. This could be used after both users are matched by mutual like and shared or when they chat with each other.) This particular feature allows a user to progressively reveal a portion, therefore when more information is shared, it is equivalent to a “third visibility higher than a second visibility.”
Regarding Claim 13:
The combination of Bhat and Winters teaches or suggests the The computer-implemented method of claim 1,
Furthermore, Bhat teaches:
-wherein the second visibility is higher than the first visibility with respect to private information of the first user. (Bhat [0058] One such feature is permitting users to view private content in another user's profile based mutual consent of each other's public content. The private information may be more personal information that a user normally shares before a date to meet is set. The more personal information may include but is not limited to a privately held spiritual belief, a secret activity that the user participates in but the user's family might not know about deal breakers, or must want aspects in the potential match. [0059] A process that allows the sharing of private information based on mutual consent may be performed in the following manner.)
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhat (US 20190236722 A1), in view of Winters (US 10659299 B1), further in view of Helled et al. (US 20180063278) hereinafter Helled.
The combination of Bhat and Winters teaches The computer-implemented method of claim 8,
However, neither Bhat nor Winters teach or suggest:
-comprising preventing provision of the indication of approval of the first user until the second profile is reconfigured to have the increased visibility.
Alternatively, Helled discloses a method for controlling a graphical user interface to receive indications about profiles of interests from multiple users, and facilitating the connection of mutually interested users. Helled teaches:
-comprising preventing provision of the indication of approval of the first user until the second profile is reconfigured to have the increased visibility. (Helled [0099] As indicated above, a progress bar may indicate a progress in the discussion. When the bar progresses, information about the users is gradually revealed as indicated above. Such information may include answers to profile questions, biography text, age, and other profile information provided by the user. Additionally or alternatively, the more the bar progresses the clearer the profile image(s) will become clearer, making the profile image less and less pixelated as users interact. In use, the more users chat and interact, the more the bar progresses while the profile(s) of the user(s) is revealed gradually. Optionally, when the bar reaches to a predefined stage, users have the ability to request to reveal each other. Optionally, while a male user has the ability to send a reveal request, a female user has the ability to reveal immediately the profile without any waiting period. This gives female users a control to decide when to actually reveal profiles based on impression and trust increased throughout the conversation.) The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation is that users are not able to like or approve each other until the reconfiguration to increased visibility occurs. In this excerpt, Helled progressively reconfigures the profile to increased visibility level as the users interact with each other. At a certain point, an option to request to reveal each other is finally offered, and the users are enabled to approve the reveal. Therefore, Helled anticipates the claim since this indication of approval is prevented until the users(specifically male users) reach a certain visibility level.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Bhat and Winters by adding Helled’s feature to not allow indications of approval until a certain visibility level has been reached(particularly for male user). One would be motivated to make this combination as it would provide the benefit of giving female users control to device when to reveal their profiles based on trust, ultimately creating a more secure system for women. (Helled [0099])
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhat (US 20190236722 A1), in view of Winters (US 10659299 B1), further in view of Mahajan et al. (US 11423175 B1) hereinafter Mahajan, further in view of Loia et al. (US 20160248864 A1) hereinafter Loia.
Regarding Claim 11:
The combination of Bhat and Winter teach or suggest The computer-implemented method of claim 1,
However, neither Bhat nor Winter teach or suggest: -applying computer vision to blur 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;
-presenting the blurred photo or video based on the first profile being configured in the first mode; and
-presenting the photo or video with less blur than the blurred photo or video based on the first profile being configured in the second mode.
Alternatively, Mahajan discloses a privacy-protecting security application that enables users to expose their true identity on social media applications such as dating apps. Mahajan teaches:
-applying computer vision to blur 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;(Mahajan [Col. 8 Lines 9-16] determination module 106 may intelligently and dynamically scan different repositories, archives, and/or histories of previously uploaded or stored items of content, and thereby further extract one or more aspects of the user's true identity from these items of content, thereby conveniently and autonomously constructing corresponding true identity signatures, as further discussed above in connection with step 304. [Col. 8 Lines 33-41] Similarly, determination module 106 may generate one or more true identity signatures based on pictures, images, audio clips, video clips, social media posts, microblogging posts, social media comments, etc., which were posted by the user himself or herself, or posted by others within an online social network environment, because any one or more of these may include information about the user's true identity (e.g., images may reveal a facial profile for how the user actually looks, [Col. 7 Lines 13-22] As used herein, the term “true identity signature” generally refers to any attribute or characteristic that, when identified (e.g., at step 304), thereby indicates that a corresponding item of media content creates a risk of exposing personally identifiable information of the user, or otherwise creates a risk of exposing one or more aspects of the user's true identity, such as the true sound of the user's voice and/or a true resemblance or image of the user's actual face, as distinct from a vocal cue or facial image cue associated with an anonymizing person [Col. 9 Lines 43-45] For example, the replacement subsets may distort the information that would otherwise potentially compromise the user's privacy or anonymity. In particular, a subset of an image may be blurred. [Col. 12 Line 61- Col. 13 Line 2] Furthermore, the disclosed subject matter may also potentially prompt the user to remove at least a portion of the item of media content that creates the risk of exposing at least part of the user's true identity. Additionally, or alternatively, the disclosed subject matter may prompt the user to replace, substitute, and/or anonymize the item of media content. In the example of videos and photographs, the disclosed subject matter may potentially blur one or more instances of human faces.) Mahajan Col. 8 describes “intelligently...dynamically scan,” for identity signatures based on images, and pictures that may include a user’s face and [Col. 9 and 12] describe blurring the portion that exposes identity (such as the instances of human faces), then Mahajan satisfies using computer vision to blur a target portion of a face. In view of the specification, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “computer vision” based on [072] of the instant specification, is any identification of a face using computer-run algorithms on image data, which is satisfied by Mahajan despite not using the exact phrase “computer vision.”
-presenting the blurred photo or video based on the first profile being configured in the first mode; and(Mahajan [Col. 11 Lines 12-18] For example, the user may potentially adopt an anonymous persona in order to engage in online dating and/or to engage in online shopping. In these examples, the disclosed subject matter may optionally define one or more sets of privacy settings, which in these privacy settings may be defined based on the activity of the anonymized identity. [Col. 12 Lines 7-13] Generally speaking, the user may be active within an anonymized environment, such as an environment where the user is adopting or referencing an anonymized identifier). The specific anonymized identifier that the user is referencing may also be tied to specific settings that defined policies for when it is acceptable, or not, to reveal instances of personal information. [Col. 12 Lines 42-50] when the user uploads one or more items of media content, the disclosed subject matter may analyze the content, and check it against one or more signatures, as discussed above. Whenever the disclosed subject matter detects a match in response to performing this checking procedure, the disclosed subject matter may also optionally alert or notify the user, thereby enabling the user to perform one or more remedial actions, as discussed further above in connection with step 306 of method 300. [Col. 12 Line 61- Col. 13 Line 2] Furthermore, the disclosed subject matter may also potentially prompt the user to remove at least a portion of the item of media content that creates the risk of exposing at least part of the user's true identity. Additionally, or alternatively, the disclosed subject matter may prompt the user to replace, substitute, and/or anonymize the item of media content. In the example of videos and photographs, the disclosed subject matter may potentially blur one or more instances of human faces.) In Mahajan’s anonymized identity environment (anonymous persona), the user’s facial images are obscured/blurred, which satisfies the first mode.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the combination of Bhat and Winter by adding the features of Mahajan, particularly, the feature of obscuring a user’s face/voice from video/audio transmission data based on the user wishing to use an anonymized identity. One of ordinary skill in the art would have tied this anonymized identity to the pre-match, public information sharing mode in Bhat, and would have combined the inventions to receive the predictable outcome of the claimed limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform this combination as it would provide the benefit of increasing security by anonymizing their online identity. (Mahajan [Col. 7 Lines 55-59] By checking whether the item of media content creates a risk of exposing any single one of these two identity signatures, determination module 106 may thereby help the user to avoid compromising the user's anonymity or otherwise, exposing the user's privacy.)
However, neither Bhat, Winters, nor Mahajan teach or suggest:
-presenting the photo or video with less blur than the blurred photo or video based on the first profile being configured in the second mode.
Alternatively Loia teaches or suggests:
-presenting the photo or video with less blur than the blurred photo or video based on the first profile being configured in the second mode. (Loia [0046] When a first user has answered the question(s) in a level correctly about another user, the first user may be rewarded with a Picture Reveal (or other information unlock) of that level, e.g. in GUI 118, and the application may remove a blur or other obscurity from the image or data, thereby revealing the image or data in full clarity to the first user. In some examples, the information may be unobscured or made available for access incrementally based on a number of questions and answers. Incorrect answers may also be used in some cases (e.g. depending on user-defined preferences) to partially or completely unobscure/access the information. [0053] In some examples, the profiles in 310 may include unobscured images that allow the browsing user to see a selected image of the profile-user. If the browsing user selects a profile in 310, an obscured image or other information can be presented in 320 along with a question associated with that image/information (e.g. for a 1.sup.st level). In 320, possible answers to the question may also be presented, or a blank field may be provided for the browsing user to enter an answer. In 330, the application may present the browsing user with an unobscured version of the image, or other information, from 320 based on a correct answer to the associated question presented in 320. This process may substantially repeat any number of times through presentation of various levels of obscured images/information, e.g. in 340, and presenting unobscured/unlocked versions of the image(s)/information in 350, etc.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the combination of Bhat and Winters by adding the teachings of Loia, specifically, presenting the photos with progressively less obscuring (blur), depending on the mode in which the profile is configured. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Bhat’s second mode (private profile) such that the photos or videos in the private profile are shown with less blur than the public profile, as one would have been motivated by the benefit in Loia of encouraging greater user interaction. (Loia [0052] In some examples, completing the user profile may automatically award the user a number of virtual currency points. The number of points awarded may vary based on, for example, the number of questions, answers, photos, videos, or other information, that the user provides. That is, users may receive additional points for building more detailed and layered profiles, which encourages greater user interaction.)
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhat (US 20190236722 A1), in view of Winters (US 10659299 B1), further in view of Mahajan et al. (US 11423175 B1) hereinafter Mahajan, further in view of Buscemi et al. (US 20220198062 A1) hereinafter Buscemi (which has earlier support from provisional application #63/128,182 filed on 01/21/2020, in which a copy of has been furnished.)
Regarding Claim 12:
The combination of Bhat and Winters teaches The computer-implemented method of claim 1, comprising:
However, neither Bhat nor Winters teach:
-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 that the distorted audio transmission based on the first profile being configured in the second mode.
Alternatively, Mahajan discloses:
-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;(Mahajan [Col. 7 Lines 34-50] Determination module 106 may perform step 304 in a variety of ways. In general, determination module 106 may determine that the item of media content matches the true identity signature at least in part by scanning or analyzing the item of media content to detect whether any part of the item of media content triggers a match with the true identity signature. In some examples, determination module 106 may reference multiple different true identity signatures, including a multitude of different true identity signatures relating to instances of personally identifiable information, such as those listed above, as well as more complex items of privacy-compromising or anonymity-compromising information, such as the user's vocal style, speaking style, language style, writing style, mannerism style, gesture style, fashion style, physical appearance, the presence of one or more uniquely identifying physical attributes (e.g., birthmarks or tattoos), etc. [Col. 7 Lines 13-22] As used herein, the term “true identity signature” generally refers to any attribute or characteristic that, when identified (e.g., at step 304), thereby indicates that a corresponding item of media content creates a risk of exposing personally identifiable information of the user, or otherwise creates a risk of exposing one or more aspects of the user's true identity, such as the true sound of the user's voice and/or a true resemblance or image of the user's actual face, as distinct from a vocal cue or facial image cue associated with an anonymizing persona. [Col. 9 Lines 43-47] For example, the replacement subsets may distort the information that would otherwise potentially compromise the user's privacy or anonymity. In particular, a subset of an image may be blurred and/or a subset of an audio clip may be distorted or diminished in volume. [Col. 9 Line 66 – Col. 10 Line 3] whereas the specific remedial action for addressing an audio clip that may potentially compromise the user's privacy may be specifically tailored to a format for audio content (e.g., audio distortion, audio noise supplementation, audio quieting, and/or audio silencing).)
-Presenting the distorted audio transmission based on the first profile being configured in the first mode; and(Mahajan [Col. 11 Lines 12-18] For example, the user may potentially adopt an anonymous persona in order to engage in online dating and/or to engage in online shopping. In these examples, the disclosed subject matter may optionally define one or more sets of privacy settings, which in these privacy settings may be defined based on the activity of the anonymized identity. [Col. 12 Lines 7-13] Generally speaking, the user may be active within an anonymized environment, such as an environment where the user is adopting or referencing an anonymized identifier). The specific anonymized identifier that the user is referencing may also be tied to specific settings that defined policies for when it is acceptable, or not, to reveal instances of personal information. [Col. 12 Lines 42-50] when the user uploads one or more items of media content, the disclosed subject matter may analyze the content, and check it against one or more signatures, as discussed above. Whenever the disclosed subject matter detects a match in response to performing this checking procedure, the disclosed subject matter may also optionally alert or notify the user, thereby enabling the user to perform one or more remedial actions, as discussed further above in connection with step 306 of method 300. [Col. 12 Line 61- Col. 13 Line 2] Furthermore, the disclosed subject matter may also potentially prompt the user to remove at least a portion of the item of media content that creates the risk of exposing at least part of the user's true identity. Additionally, or alternatively, the disclosed subject matter may prompt the user to replace, substitute, and/or anonymize the item of media content... In the example of vocal content, the disclosed subject matter may potentially add noise to distort the vocal content and obscure a vocal style of the user.) In Mahajan’s anonymized identity environment (anonymous persona), the user’s voice is obscured, which satisfies the first mode.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the combination of Bhat and Winter by adding the features of Mahajan, particularly, the feature of obscuring a user’s face/voice from video/audio transmission data based on the user wishing to use an anonymized identity. One of ordinary skill in the art would have tied this anonymized identity to the pre-match, public information sharing mode in Bhat, and would have combined the inventions to receive the predictable outcome of the claimed limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform this combination as it would provide the benefit of increasing security by anonymizing their online identity. (Mahajan [Col. 7 Lines 55-59] By checking whether the item of media content creates a risk of exposing any single one of these two identity signatures, determination module 106 may thereby help the user to avoid compromising the user's anonymity or otherwise, exposing the user's privacy.)
However, neither Bhat, Winter, nor Mahajan teach or suggest:
- Presenting the audio transmission with less distortion than the distorted audio transmission based on the first profile being configured in the second mode.
Alternatively, Buscemi discloses a system that helps protect the privacy of individuals by obscuring private information at varying distortion levels based on the intended recipient:
- Presenting the audio transmission with less distortion than the distorted audio transmission based on the first profile being configured in the second mode.(Buscemi [0017(Provisional Support in Pages 2-5, and 11) Audio distortion settings are also supported and used in some embodiments. Speech frequency and/or speech rate can be, and sometimes are, altered before posting of content associated with an individual. [0049 (Provisional Support in Pages 11, 12)] User settings and information 306 includes various user settings used to control the amount of image and/or audio distortion to be applied to content the user provides for processing prior to distribution. The user can set different levels of distortion to be applied for content being distributed to different destinations or groups. Each row 320, 322, 324, 326, 328 corresponds to a different content distribution destination, e.g., with row 320 corresponding to a public Facebook group, row 322 corresponding to a private Facebook group, row 324 corresponding to TikTok, row 326 corresponding to Instagram and row 328 providing default settings to be used for an unknown destination or when a destination is specified by user settings were not set for the particular identified content destination that is indicated along with content is provided to be processed. [0050(Provisional Support in Page 12)] While two levels (on or off) are shown, a range of levels may be, and sometimes is, specified as a numerical value, e.g., from 0 to 9, in the fields included in columns 312, 314, 316, 318. Column 319 is used to specify an amount of audio distortion or modification to be applied on audio content being distributed to the destination indicated in the corresponding cell of column 319. [0051(Provisional Support in Page 12)] Note that the user can specify different amounts and/or types of distortion to be introduced for different intended content destinations. For example, less distortion may intentionally be introduced into content intended for private groups than the more readily accessible public groups. Each user can set and configure the amount of image and/or audio distortion to be implemented accordingly to their own preference and desire to limit the usefulness of the content for user identification purposes.) The broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation above is that audio transmission is presented with less distortion based on the second mode. Since Buscemi teaches a level of audio distortion (between 0 to 9) corresponding to different destinations (public, private, unknown), then the limitation has been taught.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the combination of Bhat, and Winters with the teachings of Buscemi, particularly the feature of providing different audio distortion levels based on the destination. Since Bhat teaches providing varying levels of private or public information based on permissions shared between two individuals on a dating app, one would have the reasonable expectation of success that Buscemi’s audio distortion features can be combined with Bhat’s dating app to arrive at the predictable outcome of higher levels of audio distortion on public profiles, and lower levels of audio distortion on private profiles. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform this combination as it would provide the benefit of increasing security in a way that is audible to the human listener but bypasses online identification systems. (Buscemi [0017] As with image distortions audio distortions may be, and sometimes are, applied in such a way that the presence of any or some modification is inconspicuous to an ordinary human listener while still confounding automated identification systems. [0020] While in various embodiments altering of content captured and/or distributed by a user prior to posting is used to decrease the risk or potential for the content to be used to identify the user or other individuals in the images, when included in other content, e.g., images captured by other individuals, other features relate to reducing or minimizing the risk of previously posted content or content posted by other individuals being used in identifying a user of the biometric content processing and security system.)
Claims 14 and 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhat (US 20190236722 A1), in view of Winters (US 10659299 B1) further in view of Loia (US 20160248864 A1)
Regarding Claim 14:
The combination of Bhat and Winters teaches: The computer-implemented method of claim 1,
Furthermore, Bhat teaches:
-wherein receiving the reconfiguration of the first profile comprises receiving an indication of an selection of a button on the first client device(Bhat [0008] The first user may choose to share the private content of the first user by selecting a share private content button displayed by the system on a screen.)
However, neither Bhat nor Winters teaches that this input is a:
-tap-and hold
However, Loia teaches:
-wherein receiving the reconfiguration of the first profile comprises receiving an indication of a tap-and-hold on the first client device. (Loia [0041] The user can swipe to see more optional profiles, and tap and hold a profile to see a representation of their additional information, such as blurred pictures, clues about further personal information, etc.)
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 the combination of Bhat and Winters, by simply substituting Bhat’s share private content button with Loia’s tap and hold feature to arrive the present limitation. It would have been obvious to try this type of input as it is one example of a variety of inputs in Loia to provide more features. (Loia [0041])
Regarding Claim 16:
The combination of Bhat and Winters teaches: The computer-implemented method of claim 1,
However, neither Bhat nor Winters teaches or suggests:
- wherein providing the first profile of the first user configured in the first mode comprises:
-obtaining an image included in the first profile or a video frame included in the first profile;
-blurring the image or the video frame, to obtain a blurred image or a blurred video frame;
and providing the blurred image or the blurred video frame.
Alternatively, Loia teaches:
-wherein providing the first profile of the first user configured in the first mode comprises: obtaining an image included in the first profile or a video frame included in the first profile; (Loia [0050] FIG. 2 shows further details related to a user process flow, and exemplary GUI, for creating a profile according to aspects of the invention. As shown in FIG. 2, a first user may begin creating a profile in 210, e.g. by uploading an image that will be presented (unobscured) whenever other users are browsing the first user's profile.)
-blurring the image or the video frame, to obtain a blurred image (Loia [0011] In some examples, the obfuscation module may be configured to obscure the at least one of the plurality of images by blurring the image, changing color, brightness and/or hue of the image, changing the resolution of the image, or other image processing techniques.)
-providing the blurred image or the blurred video frame. (Loia [0040] The images (or images extracted from videos) that have been uploaded may then be “blurred” or otherwise altered to form an obscured version of the image, so other users can get a glimpse of it but they cannot see it clearly until they've answered questions (correctly or incorrectly). In other cases, the server, or client-side application, may be configured to obscure the images at the time they are originally served to a requesting user, and to correct the image(s) after the question(s) are answered.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the combination of Bhat and Winters by adding the teachings of Loia, resulting in blurring images that are shown in the public profile of Bhat. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by the benefit in Loia that encourages greater user interaction. (Loia [0052] In some examples, completing the user profile may automatically award the user a number of virtual currency points. The number of points awarded may vary based on, for example, the number of questions, answers, photos, videos, or other information, that the user provides. That is, users may receive additional points for building more detailed and layered profiles, which encourages greater user interaction.)
Claim 15, 19, & 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhat (US 20190236722 A1), in view of Winters (US 10659299 B1), further in view of Lawson et al. (US 20170116666 A1) hereinafter Lawson.
Regarding Claims 15, 19, and 21:
The combination of Bhat and Winters teaches The computer-implemented method of claim 1, The computer-readable media of claim 18, and The computer-implemented system of claim 20:
-comprising: determining, based on a configuration of the second mode, a first media communication type that is allowed in the second mode,(Bhat [0073] In accordance with another aspect of the disclosed dating application system, another feature to reduce dating fatigue is a discovery mode. In a discovery mode, a first user makes selected information from their profile available to other users within a predefined area near the user. A second user may see the selected information and ‘like the profile of the first user. In response to the like, the system provides selected information from the profile of the second user to the first user. The first user may ‘like’ or ‘accept’ the second user. When both user have like or accepted each other, the system may make the full profile of each user available to the other and/or establishes communication via message or some other mode between the users.)
-providing, to the second client device, a communication interface comprising a first interface element configured to be used to transmit a message of the first media communication type,(Loia [0077] The process may then establish a communications link such as a messaging session between the first and second users to allow the first and second users to communicate (950) and the process 900 ends. Once communication is established, the profile of the first user is taken off discovery mode since the two users would meet immediately. [0070] The message is then generated from content provided by the first user (810). The message may include textual, video and/or audio content in the various embodiments. The generated message is provided to each recipient user in the list of user without an indication that the message is also being provided to other users (815). The message may be provided as an e-mail, a SMS message, a direct message in the dating application system and/or a posting to a user's profile page in various embodiments. To make the message seem personal to the user, the message may not include a list of other recipient either in a recipient or ‘to:’ field or in ‘also copied’ or ‘CC’ field of the e-mail or other type of message.)
However, neither Bhat nor Winters teach or suggest:
-and a second media communication type that is disallowed in the second mode; and (Loia only discloses one communication type, and not two different levels)
-the communication interface excluding a second interface element configured to be used to transmit a message of the second media communication type.
Alternatively, Lawson discloses a social system allowing users to socialize, flirt, and date in a dynamic platform. A feature of Lawson includes varying levels of communication based on privileges that users are able to attain using an e-currency system. Lawson teaches:
-and a second media communication type that is disallowed in the second mode; and the communication interface excluding a second interface element configured to be used to transmit a message of the second media communication type. (Lawson [0040] The system in exemplary embodiments may also associate system requirements or limitations on the exchange of e-currency icons. For example, if an e-currency icon is sent and/or accepted by a user, the recipient may be required to initiate a virtual exchange with a user. The exchange may be required for a period of time or a number of exchanges. The requirements for the exchange may also depend on the value of the e-currency icon. For example, if a high value e-currency icon is gifted and accepted, the recipient may receive a voice call or video request verses simply initiating a textual chat request for lower value e-currency icon exchanges.) The broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation is that there exists a second type of media communication that is not available in the second mode (such as a call or video chat), and whilst the interface is in the second mode, the interface does not include an option to transmit a message in this form. Lawson’s system teaches this, because if you map the second visibility mode to Lawson’s lower value e-currency icon exchanges, both modes only display a textual chat request and don’t have the voice or video call request option. A high value e-currency icon must be gifted and accepted to enable this form of communication; therefore the limitation has been taught.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Bhat and Winters by adding varying levels to the types of communications that users are allowed to have based on certain visibility settings as taught by Lawson. The combined system would have the expected result of allowing users to increase visibility in order to unlock another form of communication such as video. One would be motivated to make this combination as it would provide the benefit of enabling users to more naturally show their charm and make a more accurate impression. (Lawson [0004])
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhat (US 20190236722 A1), in view of Winters (US 10659299 B1), further in view of Janssens; Olivier Maurice Maria (US 20140040368 A1) hereinafter Janssens.
The combination of Bhat and Winters teaches The computer-implemented method of claim 1:
Furthermore, Bhat teaches:
-wherein the livestream is visible to the second user when the first profile is configured in the second mode.(Bhat [0037] FIG. 16 illustrates a flow diagram of a process performed by a dating application server system to provide live video streams from an event to a group of users in accordance with an embodiment of the disclosed system. [0095] A process performed by the dating application server system to provide live content to a selected group of users in accordance with an aspect of the disclosure is shown in FIG. 16. A process 1600 receives live content of an event from a first user (1605). The user provides a selection of users to receive the live content. The selection of users may be a group of friends, a group of potential matches, or a combination of these groups. The live content is provided to the selected users (1615) and process 1600 ends.) The live content streamed to “a group of friends,” or a “group of potential matches,” is an example of a livestream visible to users when the first profile is configured in a second mode.
However, neither Bhat nor Winters explicitly teaches:
-wherein a livestream associated with the first user is not visible to the second user when the first profile is configured in the first mode,
Alternatively, Janssens teaches discloses a matchmaking system that provides adequate interfaces to interact with other users in a variety of ways. Janssens teaches :
-wherein a livestream associated with the first user is not visible to the second user when the first profile is configured in the first mode, and wherein the livestream is visible to the second user when the first profile is configured in the second mode.(Janssens [0082] A user may provide media, such as photographs, videos and/or a live webcam stream, to be associated with the user’s account. These may be part of the profile information or may be stored separately in photo/video/media data 506. This data may be used for display on cards associated with the user. In an embodiment, the user may submit media and then select a subset to be shown on cards for the user. The subset to be shown may be customizable by the user. The order in which different photographs, videos and/or a live webcam stream are shown may also be customizable by the user. For example, the user can specify that different media is to be shown to different card viewers. For example, a user may specify that older viewers are to be displayed more professional, formal photographs, and younger viewers are to be displayed more casual photographs. By way of further example, a user may specify that other users that like the user can see more of the photos/videos/live webcam stream material uploaded than users that have not indicated that they like the user.) The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation is that livestreams of the first user can be seen by the second user when the second user is configured in the second mode only, but not in the first mode. Janssen’s users that have not indicated that they like the user is mapped to the “first mode,” and Janssen’s users that have indicated that they liked the user is mapped to the second mode. Since Janssen’s teaches that the “live webcam stream” can only be seen by users that have indicated their approval, the limitation has been taught.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Bhat and Winters by adding the specific feature that the livestream is not visible to users when the first profile is configured in the first mode(have not indicated that they like the user). By performing this simple substitution one would have reasonably expected to arrive at the claimed limitation. One would be motivated to make this combination as it would provide the benefit of enabling more options to communicate for various users, including through a livestream. (Janssens [0026])
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s remarks over rejections over 35 U.S.C. 101, the applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the following reasons. The applicant emphasizes alleged improvements to “network resource consumption reduction,” citing to [0090], [0098] of the specification. However, these arguments are not persuasive (for the independent claims 1, 18, and 20) because the reduction in the amount of transmitted data is inherently caused by the manner in which the interactions are managed by the system, which would be an improvement to the abstract idea as opposed to a technical improvement to computer functionality. MPEP 2106.05(a) states, “Notably, the court did not distinguish between the types of technology when determining the invention improved technology. However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology.” MPEP 2106.05(a) further states, “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements.” Therefore, the applicant’s argument that “incorporating visibility configurations directly into data-organizational frameworks, network resource utilization can be advantageously reduced through pre-selection of only a subset of available data” is an alleged improvement to computer network functionality is not persuasive because merely pre-selecting a subset of data to transmit is a concept that still falls within “managing personal behavior or interactions relationships” as it merely “filtering.” MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C), states “Other examples of managing personal behavior recited in a claim include:
“i. filtering content, BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1345-46, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding that filtering content was an abstract idea under step 2A, but reversing an invalidity judgment of ineligibility due to an inadequate step 2B analysis);” Unlike BASCOM, which MPEP 2106.05(f)(1) notes, “In BASCOM, the court determined that the claimed combination of limitations did not simply recite an instruction to apply the abstract idea of filtering content on the Internet. BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1243 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Instead, the claim recited a "technology based solution" of filtering content on the Internet that overcome the disadvantages of prior art filtering systems. 827 F.3d at 1350-51, 119 USPQ2d at 1243.” MPEP 2106.05(f)(3) states, “For example, in BASCOM, the combination of additional elements, and specifically "the installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end‐users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user" where the filtering tool at the ISP was able to "identify individual accounts that communicate with the ISP server, and to associate a request for Internet content with a specific individual account," were held to be meaningful limitations because they confined the abstract idea of content filtering to a particular, practical application of the abstract idea. 827 F.3d at 1350-51, 119 USPQ2d at 1243.” However, the present claims differ from the considerations above because they merely provide the reduction of transmitted data by using a general purpose computer in its ordinary capacity to store a “visibility field” or “object classes,” and then transmitting the relevant data from the field. This is no more than mere “filtering,” as opposed to providing an improved combination of additional elements that confine the abstract idea to a particular practical application. Even when considering the combination of additional elements, the claims do not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as improving upon conventional functioning of a computer. MPEP 2106.05(a) states, “To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding 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. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology.” Therefore, since the abstract idea (filtering/managing personal relationships) provides the alleged improvement (a subset of data transmitted), and a generic computer is added after the fact to the abstract idea, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive over 1-4 and 6-11, and 13-21.
In response to the particular consideration requested by the applicant with respect to claims 11 and 12, the examiner has provided a detailed explanation of the 2-step analysis particularly for these claims and has found that claim 11 is still directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, and therefore is still rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. However, claim 12 provides significantly more, when considered in combination with all of the limitations of claim 1, because it is a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts. In addition to the reasons for eligibility provided below the 101 rejection, the claims provide an unconventional technical solution when considering the variable level of targeted audio distortion in combination with the “querying a database remote from the second client device to retrieve a subset of a plurality of elements,” because the distorted audio reflects the alleged improvement in [098], “In addition, because elements are effectively filtered at the server 204 before transmission to the client device 202a, the chances of data security violations (e.g., packet interception to obtain elements that are not within the scope of selected visibility mode(s)) may be reduced.” Therefore, if the claims were amended to include all of the limitations of claim 1 and claim 12, then the claim would be eligible over 35 U.S.C. 101, but remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 for being obvious over the prior art of record.
Therefore, in response to the applicant’s arguments over 35 U.S.C. 102/103, the applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, and the examiner acknowledges that Loia has been shown not to disclose or render obvious “preventing establishing of a match...until the first user reconfigures the first profile...” as recited in amended claims 1, 18, 20. However, upon further search and consideration, the amendment has resulted in a rejection over 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of the combination of Bhat and Winters. The combination teaches or renders obvious each and every limitation of the claims as amended. The remaining pending claims also remain rejected under various combinations of Bhat, Winters, Helled, Loia, Mahajan, Buscemi, Lawson, and/or Janssens. Therefore, the applicant’s arguments which are based on prior art references which are no longer relied upon individually, are moot in view of the updated rejections.
Conclusion
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