Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to papers filed on 11/3/2025.
Claims 1, 10, 17, 18, and 20 have been amended.
Claims 4, 6, 7, 13-16, and 19 have been cancelled.
Claims 21 and 22 have been added.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8-12, 17, 18, and 20-22 are pending.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/3/2025 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 11 should conclude with a semi-colon (;) rather than a comma (,). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 14, 38, and 42 should conclude with a semi-colon (;) rather than a comma (,). Line 35 concludes with two (2) semi-colons (;;). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 16 should conclude with a semi-colon (;) rather than a comma (,). Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-3, 5, 8-12, 17, 18, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claims are directed to a process (method as introduced in Claim 1), and/or system (Claim 22), and/or non-transitory computer-readable storage medium with executable instructions (Claim 21), thus Claims 1-3, 5, 8-12, 17, 18, and 20-22 fall within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claimed invention recites an abstract idea according to MPEP §2106.04. The independent claims which recite the following claim limitations as an abstract idea, are underlined below. The bolded portions demonstrate the differences between the claim language
Claims 1 and 22 recite:
registering a plurality of users for an application, the application associated with a plurality of online social groups, each online social group having one or more corresponding criteria and a location based filter for users to join [and/or exit] the online social group;
maintaining one or more corresponding tags of each user of the plurality of users, maintaining and dynamically and automatically tracking a location parameter of each user of the plurality of users, wherein the location parameter of a user is dynamically tracked and automatically updated based on an application program being executed within a mobile device of the user that is tracking a geolocation of the device, the location parameter providing timestamped geolocation updates of the user on a real or near-real time basis;
wherein the location parameter of a user is updated to indicate that the user is at a certain geographical location, in response to the tracked geolocation of the device indicating a presence of the device in the geographical location for at least a specific period of time;
matching a first user of the plurality of users to a first online social group of the plurality of online social groups, based on one or more corresponding tags and the dynamic and automatically tracked location parameter of the first user satisfying the one or more corresponding criteria and the location based filter, respectively, of the first online social group;
based on matching the first user to the first online social group, admitting the first user to the first online social group;
dynamically and continuously monitoring in real or near-real time and based on the timestamped geolocation updates of the first user, whether the location parameter of the first user matches the location-based filter of the first online social group;
based at least in part on the dynamically and continuously monitoring, determining that the location parameter of the first user is not matching the location based filter of the first online social group for at least a first threshold period of time;
based on determining that the location parameter of the first user is not matching the location based filter for at least the first threshold period of time, automatically marking the first user as an inactive user of the first online social group, without manual intervention;
based at least in part on the dynamically and continuously monitoring, determining that the location parameter of the first user is not matching the location based filter of the first online social group for at least a second threshold period of time;
wherein each of the first threshold period of time and the second threshold period of time starts from a first time during which the location parameter of the first user starts mismatching with the location based filter of the first online social group; and
wherein the second threshold period of time is longer than the first threshold period of time;
based on determining that the location parameter of the first user is not matching the location based filter for at least the second threshold period of time, automatically expelling the first user from the first online social group without manual intervention, thereby updating the membership-state of the first user in a database of the online social network.
Claim 21 recites:
registering a plurality of users for an application, the application associated with a plurality of online social groups, each online social group having one or more corresponding criteria and a location based filter for users to join and/or exit the online social group;
maintaining one or more corresponding tags of each user of the plurality of users;
maintaining and dynamically and automatically tracking a location parameter of each user of the plurality of users, wherein the location parameter of a user is dynamically tracked and automatically updated based on an application program being executed within a mobile device of the user that is tracking a geolocation of the device, the location parameter providing timestamped geolocation updates of the user on a real or near-real time basis;
wherein the location parameter of a user is updated to indicate that the user is at a certain geographical location, in response to the tracked geolocation of the device indicating a presence of the device in the geographical location for at least a specific period of time;
matching a first user of the plurality of users to a first online social group of the plurality of online social groups, based on one or more corresponding tags and the dynamic and automatically tracked location parameter of the first user satisfying the one or more corresponding criteria and the location based filter, respectively, of the first online social group;
based on matching the first user to the first online social group, admitting the first user to the first online social group;
dynamically and continuously monitoring in real or near-real time and based on the timestamped geolocation updates of the first user, whether the location parameter of the first user matches the location-based filter of the first online social group;
based at least in part on the dynamically and continuously monitoring, determining that the location parameter of the first user is not matching the location based filter of the first online social group for at least a first threshold period of time;
based on determining that the location parameter of the first user is not matching the location based filter for at least the first threshold period of time, automatically marking the first user as an inactive user of the first online social group, without manual intervention and without expelling the first user from the first online social group;
subsequent to marking the first user as the inactive user, determining that the location parameter of the first user again matches the location based filter of the first online social group prior to expiration of a second threshold period of time;
wherein each of the first threshold period of time and the second threshold period of time starts from a first time during which the location parameter of the first user starts mismatching with the location based filter of the first online social group; and
wherein the second threshold period of time is longer than the first threshold period of time;
based on determining that the location parameter of the first user is not matching the location based filter for at least the second threshold period of time, automatically expelling the first user from the first online social group without manual intervention, thereby updating the membership-state of the first user in a database of the online social network.
based on determining that the location parameter of the first user again matches the location based filter of the first online social group prior to expiration of the second threshold period of time, reactivating a membership of the first user to the first online social group.
.
The underlined claim limitations as emphasized above, as drafted, recite a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers the performance of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities) in the form of tracking use locations to determine eligibility in a social group and/or update the user’s status. Other than reciting a computer implementation, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from encompassing the performance of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities) which represents the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity. But for the recitation of generic implementation of computer system components, the claimed invention merely recites a process for tracking a user’s location to determine eligibly to be part of a social group.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite additional elements such as:
A computer, one or more processors of a computing system, and/or a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing executable instructions;
an application associated with a plurality of online social groups;
a database [of membership-states]; and
an application program executed within a mobile device for tracking geolocations.
In particular, the additional elements cited above beyond the abstract idea are recited at a high-level of generality and simply equivalent to a generic recitation and basic functionality that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer technology components.
Accordingly, since the specification describes the additional elements in general terms, without describing the particulars, the additional elements may be broadly but reasonably construed as generic computing components being used to perform the judicial exception (see specification at [0010]; [0068]). Additionally, recitations such as “automatically tracking”, “automatically updating”, and/or “without manual intervention” merely attempt to tie the claimed invention to an automated environment, but fail to provide enough detail to explicitly do so. Merely using these terms and phrases does not demonstrate that the method/system and its steps requires or is rooted in the underlying computer/technology and cannot be performed outside of the recited computer/technology. These claimed additional elements merely recite the words “apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Thus, the additional claim elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, because the claims do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements, individually or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims:
Claims 2, 3, 5, 8-12, 17, 18, and 20 recite further elements related to the tracking, eligibility determination, and status updating steps of the parent claims. These activities fail to differentiate the claims from the related activities in the parent claims and fail to provide any material to render the claimed invention to be significantly more than the identified abstract ideas, as outlined below.
Claim 2 recites “wherein admitting the first user to the first online social group comprises: based on matching the first user to the first online social group, inviting the first user to join the first online social group; and in response to the user accepting the invitation, admitting the first user to the first online social group”, which specifies further steps related to determining and updating users’ participation in location-based social groups, but does not make the claims any less abstract.
Claim 3 recites “wherein admitting the first user to the first online social group comprises: based on matching the first user to the first online social group, automatically admitting the first user as a provisional member of the first online social group; and subsequent to automatically admitting the first user as the provisional member of the first online social group and in response to receiving a response from the first user and/or an administrator of the first online social group, admitting the first user as a regular member of the first online social group”, w which specifies further steps related to determining and updating users’ participation in location-based social groups, but does not make the claims any less abstract.
Claim 5 recites “wherein while the first user is marked as the inactive user, the first user cannot be scheduled to participate in an in-person event of the first online social group”, which specifies further steps related to determining and updating users’ participation in location-based social groups, but does not make the claims any less abstract.
Claim 8 recites “wherein the location based filter of the first online social group is a first location based filter, wherein the location parameter of the first user is a first location parameter, and wherein the method further comprising: based on tracking a second location parameter of a second user, determining that the second location parameter of the second user is not matching a second location based filter of a second online social group for at least a third threshold period of time; and based on determining that the second location parameter of the second user is not matching the second location based filter of the second online social group for at least the third threshold period of time, providing the second user an option to quit the second online social group”, which specifies further steps related to determining and updating users’ participation in location-based social groups, but does not make the claims any less abstract.
Claim 9 recites “based on a response received from the second user to quit the second online social group, ousting the second user from the second online social group”, which specifies further steps related to determining and updating users’ participation in location-based social groups, but does not make the claims any less abstract.
Claim 10 recites “the first online social group has a policy to oust a user, if the location parameter of the user doesn't match with the location based filter of the first online social group for the second a threshold period of time; and a second online social group has a policy to oust a user, if the location parameter of the user doesn't match with the location based filter of the second online social group for a third threshold period of time, wherein the second and third threshold period of times are different”, which specifies further steps related to determining and updating users’ participation in location-based social groups, but does not make the claims any less abstract.
Claim 11 recites “based on tracking the location parameter of the first user, determining that the location parameter of the first user is matching a location based filter of a second online social group for at least a third threshold period of time; further determining that the one or more corresponding tags of the first user satisfy one or more corresponding criteria of the second online social group; and admitting the first user to the second online social group, subsequent to at least the third threshold period of time”, which specifies further steps related to determining and updating users’ participation in location-based social groups, but does not make the claims any less abstract.
Claims 12 and 20 recite “wherein the one or more tags of the first user are indicative of one or more of interests of the first user, educational institutions that the first user attended or is current attending, education degree and/or professional degree or diploma of the first user, home town of the first users, demographic information, biographic information, personal or professional information, and/or other relevant type of information about the first user”, which specifies further steps related to determining and updating users’ participation in location-based social groups, but does not make the claims any less abstract.
Claim 17 recites “wherein the joining criteria of the first social group includes one or more of having interest in an interest area, being an alumni or a student of an educational institution, having an education degree or a professional degree or a diploma, or previously belonging to a geographical location”, which specifies further steps related to determining and updating users’ participation in location-based social groups, but does not make the claims any less abstract.
Claim 18 recites “wherein the location criterion of the first social group necessities that members of the first social group live within one or more of a neighborhood, a city, a zip code, a college campus, or a geographical area”, which specifies further steps related to determining and updating users’ participation in location-based social groups, but does not make the claims any less abstract.
The claims do not provide any new additional limitations or meaningful limits beyond abstract idea that are not addressed above in the independent claims therefore, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor do they provide significantly more to the abstract idea. Thus, after considering all claim elements, both individually and as a whole, it has been determined that the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Therefore, Claims 2, 3, 5, 8-12, 17, 18, and 20 are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 8-12, 20, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rao (Pub. No. US 2018/0302364 A1) in view of Kapoor et al. (Pub. No. US 2020/0403951 A1) in further view of Zifroni et al. (Pub. No. US 2013/0097246 A1) in further view of Fisher et al. (Pub. No. US 2009/0215469 A1).
In regards to Claims 1 and 22, Rao discloses:
A computer implemented method/system comprising:
registering a plurality of users for an application, the application associated with a plurality of online social groups, each online social group having one or more corresponding criteria and a location based filter for users to join the online social group; (Claim 9, user devices include a client application that automatically registers them in the system/application (client application associated with a website/server that is used to match/register the user in social networking networks/groups; [0035], retains location parameters of a user and matches them to social networks when they move, matching social networks/groups based on current location demonstrates filtering of location; [0020]; Claim 1 “…automatically enrolls mobile phone users into social network services that focuses on building online communities of people who share their interests and/or activities…”, “…automatically provides access to relevant social networks comprising experts associated with a job performed, and interests expressed by the new user; automatically provides access to social networks of local businesses anticipated to be of interest to the new user;…”, matching the based on attributes associated with the user is comparable to criteria associated with the user and social networks/groups (data that identifies these attributes of the users and is used for matching); [0032], provides an example of criteria related to being matched with and enrolled in a group (in this example, corn farmers in a specific location), this is not the only example in the reference)
maintaining one or more corresponding tags of each user of the plurality of users, and maintaining dynamically and automatically and tracking a location parameter of each user of the plurality of users, wherein the location parameter of a user is dynamically tracked and automatically updated based on an application program being executed within a mobile device of the user that is tracking a geolocation of the device, wherein the location parameter of a user is updated to indicate that the user is at a certain geographical location; ([0035], retains location parameters of a user and matches them to social networks when they move; [0020]; Claim 1 “…automatically enrolls mobile phone users into social network services that focuses on building online communities of people who share their interests and/or activities…”, “…automatically provides access to relevant social networks comprising experts associated with a job performed, and interests expressed by the new user; automatically provides access to social networks of local businesses anticipated to be of interest to the new user;…”, matching the based on attributes associated with the user is comparable to tags associated with the user (data that identifies these attributes of the users and is used for matching), including any of this data that is maintained and used when the user moves (see [0035]) and used for enrolling in new social networks/groups; [0027]; [0039]; etc., A GPS (“application within a device of the user tracking a geolocation of the device”) is used to determine locations of the device (including current location, i.e. updating); Claim 1, “…and a location change manager in the server, upon automatic determination of a new location for the new user…”, dynamically tracks a user’s location and automatically updates it (see also [0031], “…server 113 selectively changes the membership…when the user's mobile device indicates a change in its current location…”))
matching a first user of the plurality of users to a first online social group of the plurality of online social groups, based on one or more corresponding tags and the dynamically and automatically tracked location parameter of the first user satisfying the one or more corresponding criteria and the location based filter, respectively, of the first online social group; ([0020]; [0022]; [0031]; [0035]; Claim 1; Claim 9, users are matched to one or more social networks/groups based on location data and interests (or other attributes of the user), the use of interests and other attributes demonstrates criteria/tags; [0032], provides an example of criteria related to being matched with and enrolled in a group (in this example, corn farmers in a specific location), this is not the only example in the reference) and
based on matching the first user to the first online social group, admitting the first user to the first online social group ([0020]; [0022]; [0032]; [0035]; Claim 1; Claim 9, matching as described above, additionally, the users are automatically registered in one or more of the matched social networks/groups)
based at least in part on the dynamically and continuously monitoringmembership is adjusted based on the user location, including no longer in a location for a first group, “…monitors the current location for the user, and adjusts his membership to the social networks and social groups.” Indicates the continuous and dynamic monitoring of the current location of a user, see also [0038]; [0039], the use of GPS technology also indicates the ability to continuously and dynamically monitor current locations)
thereby updating the membership-state of the first user in a database of the online social network ([0016]; [0038]; [0040], shows a database used to store and manage registration information of subscribers/users that includes membership information, access rights, registration information, etc. (“The database 115 comprises an automatic registrations module…a location to social networks mapping module…The database 115 comprises customized user profiles, user account information, user preferences and other related information too.”); [0035], user registration data, etc. is changed as they change location (updated))
Rao does not explicitly disclose marking a user as inactive after threshold period of time, but Kapoor teaches based on determining that the location parameter of the first user is not matching the location based filter for at least the first threshold period of time, automatically marking the first user as an inactive user of the first online social group, without manual intervention ([0172], “…indicates if or when a member was last active…”, can measure the length of time of inactivity; [0187], members are identified as inactive; [0171]; [0172], the system updates the graphical user interface with the group user details based on data such as last activity, there is no indication that the active/inactive status of users is manually set (indicating automatic without manual intervention))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the system of Rao so as to have included the ability to measure the time that a user is inactive and automatically mark the user an inactive user of the first online social group, without manual intervention, as taught by Kapoor in order to provide control over who content is provided to, such as only to those who show interest (Kapoor, [0045], most recently active are selected)
Rao/Kapoor discloses the ability to measure how long someone is outside of a location and the ability measure the time since the user was active and mark them as inactive (first time period), as shown above. Additionally, Kapoor teaches the ability to measure how long the user has been inactive (second time period) and remove them from the social networking group based on that time,
wherein each of the first threshold period of time and the second threshold period of time starts from a first time during which the location parameter of the first user starts mismatching with the location based filter of the first online social group, and
wherein the second threshold period of time is longer than the first threshold period of time; ([0172]; [0187], inactivity is measured from the time a “member was last active”, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the amount of time a member was inactive (second threshold) would begin at the same time as they are first identified as inactive (first threshold), for example, (1) a member who has an indication of when they were last active, but has not yet been removed would be in the first time period (there is no indication of a specific length of time from the last activity to being marked inactive, therefore it could be any time period/threshold including extremely short ones, such as a few seconds or shorter), and (2) a member who has been removed from the group would have been inactive for a threshold period of time and in the second time period (a removed member would not be listed with a last active indicator))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the system of Rao so as to have included he ability to measure how long the user has been inactive (second time period) and remove them from the social networking group based on that time, wherein each of the first threshold period of time and the second threshold period of time starts from a first time during which the location parameter of the first user starts mismatching with the location based filter of the first online social group, and wherein the second threshold period of time is longer than the first threshold period of time, as taught by Kapoor in order to provide control over who content is provided to, such as only to those who show interest (Kapoor, [0045])
Rao/Kapoor disclose the above system in which users’ location are tracked in order to determine which social networks to which they can be added Rao/Kapoor does not explicitly disclose that the user must be present in a location for a specified period of time. However, Zifroni teaches:
in response to the tracked geolocation of the device indicating a presence of the device in the geographical location for at least a specific period of time (Claim 2, “…receiving an indication of how long the first user is at the first geolocation; and wherein the criteria established for the multilocal service includes a threshold amount of time a user must be present at a location for a social networking link to be added.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the system of Rao/Kapoor so as to have included in response to the tracked geolocation of the device indicating a presence of the device in the geographical location for at least a specific period of time, as taught by Zifroni in order to ensure that users are not trying to gain illicit access to the social network and/or are worthy of joining the group (Zifroni, [0012]; [0048])
Rao/Kapoor disclose the above system in which users can be removed from social networking services when they are outside of a designated area/location ([0035], upon being outside of the designated area, the user is provided the opportunity to retain membership (indicating they also have the opportunity to cancel membership). Although it may be implied, Rao/Kapoor does not explicitly disclose expelling the first user from the first social group if they no longer satisfy the location criterion for at least the second threshold period of time. However, Zifroni teaches:
based on determining that the location parameter of the first user is not matching the location based filter for at least [a] threshold period of time, automatically expelling the first user from the first online social group, without manual intervention, ([0049]; Claim 17, “…wherein the implicit social networking service is further designed to remove a social networking link between the user and the multilocal service if the user fails to visit a matching geolocation within a predefined period of time.”, failing to visit a geolocation for a predefined period of time would be equivalent to being outside of that geolocation for a predefined period of time [0047]-[0049]; and throughout the reference, location monitoring, social network matching, and other activities are performed by the system (indicating automatic without manual intervention))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the system of Rao/Kapoor so as to have included based on determining that the location parameter of the first user is not matching the location based filter for at least [a] threshold period of time, automatically expelling the first user from the first online social group, without manual intervention, as taught by Zifroni in order to protect the privacy of the users of the social network (Zifroni, [0012]; [0048])
Rao/Kapoor/Zifroni disclose the above system in which users’ locations are dynamically and continuously monitoring (Rao, [0035], membership is adjusted based on current user location, “…monitors the current location for the user, and adjusts his membership to the social networks and social groups.” indicates the continuous and dynamic monitoring of the current location of a user, see also [0038]; [0039], the use of GPS technology also indicates the ability to continuously and dynamically monitor current locations). Although it may be implied by the use of GPS, Rao/Kapoor/Zifroni does not explicitly disclose that the use of timestamped geolocation data. However, Fisher teaches:
the location parameter providing timestamped geolocation updates of the user on a real or near-real time basis, and dynamically and continuously monitoring in real or near-real time and based on the timestamped geolocation updates of the first user, whether the location parameter of the first user matches the location-based filter of the first online social group; ([0046], the system can track device locations and associated timestamps in order track the status and modification in status of users/devices, the updated modification statuses (location and timestamps) can determine whether a user is within a location (matching) or away from the location (not matching); [0008]; [0054]; etc., determines if location matches or does not match location required for social networks; [0044], the devices can execute GPS application programs to track the locations of the devices (“…the GPS location of the GPS receiver 114 of the PDA 104 is tracked using a GPS server and/or via satellites…”), additionally the system is able to detect the presence of devices in a location, this in combination with the ability to timestamp geolocations, track status and use GPs tracking indicates the real-time or near real-time updates of geolocations (see also [0005]; [0006]; [0045]; [0051]; [0054], “…when a user enters a physical location…”))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the system of Rao/Kapoor/Zifroni so as to have included the location parameter providing timestamped geolocation updates of the user on a real or near-real time basis, and dynamically and continuously monitoring in real or near-real time and based on the timestamped geolocation updates of the first user, whether the location parameter of the first user matches the location-based filter of the first online social group, as taught by Fisher in order to ensure that the location information is accurate and up-to-date (Fisher, [0046])
In regards to Claim 2, Rao/Kapoor/Zifroni discloses the above system in which users can be matched to social groups. Additionally, Rao discloses that social group admittance can be made temporary by the user ([0031]). Rao/Kapoor/Zifroni does not explicitly disclose, but Fisher teaches:
wherein admitting the first user to the first online social group comprises:
based on matching the first user to the first online social group, inviting the first user to join the first online social group; ([0005]-[0007], users are invited to join a social network when their location matches) and
in response to the user accepting the invitation, admitting the first user to the first online social group ([0005]-[0007], users accept invited to join a social network).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the system of Rao/Kapoor/Zifroni so as to have included wherein admitting the first user to the first online social group comprises: based on matching the first user to the first online social group, inviting the first user to join the first online social group; and in response to the user accepting the invitation, admitting the first user to the first online social group, as taught by Fisher in order to provide additional control over membership, such as when a user is only in a location for a short period of time and doesn’t want to commit immediately or only to those who show interest (Rao, [0031]; Fisher, [0005]-[0007]; Kapoor, [0045]; Zifroni, [0012]; [0048]).
In regards to Claim 5, Rao does not explicitly disclose wherein while the first user is marked as the inactive user, the first user cannot be scheduled to participate in an in-person event of the first online social group. However, Kapoor teaches the removal from group messaging threads for being inactive ([0187]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill int the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to not allow inactive members to be scheduled to participate in social network group events. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that not allowing inactive users to be scheduled for events would be very conceptually similar to not allowing users to participate in other social network related activities such as that taught in Kapoor and that scheduling inactive users would be inefficient because it can be assumed that inactive users would not see that they were scheduled for the events.
In regards to Claim 8, Rao discloses:
location based filters for online social groups and location parameters for a plurality of users of online social groups; ([0035], retains location parameters of a user and matches them to social networks when they move, matching social networks/groups based on current location demonstrates filtering of location) and
based on tracking the location parameter of a user, determining that the location parameter of the user is not matching the location based filter of the online social group; ([0035], membership is adjusted based on the user location, including no longer in a location for a first group)
based on determining that the second location parameter of the second user is not matching the second location based filter of the second online social group providing the user an option to quit the online social group ([0035], upon being outside of the designated area, the user is provided the opportunity to retain membership (indicating they also have the opportunity/option to quit))
Rao/Kapoor/Zifroni does not explicitly disclose above process being performed for a first user and a second user or for a first online social group and a second online social group. However, Fisher teaches the ability to apply location based filtering to multiple users and multiple social networks ([0046]; [0067], users are matched to location based social networks based on location criteria, tracked location, and tags (see [0059]; [0060]), for example two users in the same location can be added to different social networks that have the same location criteria, but different tag association (such as interest in different opposing teams, a first social network for one team and a second social network for the other team))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the system of Rao/Kapoor/Zifroni so as to have included the ability to apply the same location based functions to multiple users and multiple social networks, as taught by Fisher in order to provide a robust and usable system by ensure that the system isn’t limited to a single user or a single social network and ensuing that users with different interest or attributes can access a variety of groups (Fisher, [0059]; [0060]; [0046]; [0067]). Although this example describes enrolling user sin different groups, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how to apply this principal to other functions, such as providing a user an option to quit based on the location based criteria.
In regards to Claim 9, Rao discloses:
based on a response received from the user to quit the online social group, ousting the user from the online social group ([0035], upon being outside of the designated area, the user is provided the opportunity to retain membership (indicating they also have the opportunity to quit)
Rao/Kapoor/Zifroni does not explicitly disclose above process being performed for a first user and a second user or for a first online social group and a second online social group. However, Fisher teaches the ability to apply location based filtering to multiple users and multiple social networks ([0046]; [0067], users are matched to location based social networks based on location criteria, tracked location, and tags (see [0059]; [0060]), for example two users in the same location can be added to different social networks that have the same location criteria, but different tag association (such as interest in different opposing teams, a first social network for one team and a second social network for the other team))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the system of Rao/Kapoor/Zifroni so as to have included the ability to apply the same location based functions to multiple users and multiple social networks, as taught by Fisher in order to provide a robust and usable system by ensure that the system isn’t limited to a single user or a single social network and ensuing that users with different interest or attributes can access a variety of groups (Fisher, [0059]; [0060]; [0046]; [0067]). Although this example describes enrolling user sin different groups, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how to apply this principal to other functions, such as providing a user an option to quit the location based criteria.
In regards to Claim 10, Rao/Kapoor/Zifroni discloses:
Rao/Kapoor disclose the above system in which users can be removed from social networking services when they are outside of a designated area/location ([0035], upon being outside of the designated area, the user is provided the opportunity to retain membership (indicating they also have the opportunity to cancel membership).
Although it may be implied, Rao/Kapoor does not explicitly disclose expelling the first user from the first social group if they no longer satisfy the location criterion for at least the second threshold period of time. However, Zifroni teaches:
the first online social group has a policy to oust a user, if the location parameter of the user doesn't match with the location based filter of the first online social group for the second threshold period of time; ([0049]; Claim 17, “…wherein the implicit social networking service is further designed to remove a social networking link between the user and the multilocal service if the user fails to visit a matching geolocation within a predefined period of time.”, failing to visit a geolocation for a predefined period of time would be equivalent to being outside of that geolocation for a [second] predefined period of time)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the system of Rao/Kapoor so as to have included the first online social group has a policy to oust a user, if the location parameter of the user doesn't match with the location based filter of the first online social group for the second threshold period of time, as taught by Zifroni in order to protect the privacy of the users of the social network (Zifroni, [0012]; [0048])
Rao/Kapoor/Zifroni/Fisher does not explicitly disclose above ousting process being performed on both a first online social group with a second threshold period of time and a second online social group with a third threshold period of time.
However, at least Rao discloses the ability to be enrolled in multiple location based social networks simultaneously. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the process for expelling the users from each network would be performed in the same manner, since the expelling from both networks is performed in the same manner (based on location and time thresholds). One of ordinary skill in the art would also recognize that, since Rao/Kapoor/Zifroni/Fisher has the ability to enroll in multiple location based social networks, then the removal from those networks based on moving would include removal from the multiple networks (see Rao, [0031]; [0035]).
The prior art is clearly applied to being used by multiple users and social groups and provides no material indicating that it would be limited to a single use, used only for a single user, or used only for a single social group. One of ordinary skill in the art that understood how to perform the process for one network would understand how to perform the process for any number of networks. Additionally, neither Rao, Kapoor, Zifroni, nor Fisher include any material that would preclude the system from performing the location and time determinations and network expelling from being performed on more than one network (or limiting expelling to only one network). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have to have included performing the method/system on multiple social groups with associated threshold periods of time and the prior art demonstrates all of the necessary components and skill to do so.
Additionally, in regards to wherein the second and third threshold period of times are different, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention, would find it obvious to allow different social networks to have different “ousting” policies (including different time thresholds), since different social networks could be owned/operated by different entities who may have different business practices, rules, etc.
In regards to Claim 11, Rao discloses:
based on tracking the location parameter of the first user, determining that the location parameter of the first user is matching a location based filter of a second online social group; (at least [0035])
further determining that the one or more corresponding tags of the first user satisfy one or more corresponding criteria of the second online social group; (at least [0032]; [0035]) and
admitting the first user to the second online social group ([0035], upon being outside of the designated area, the user is provided the opportuni