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
The office action is being examined in response to the amendment filed by the applicant on 14 May 2026.
Claims 1-6, 10-16, and 18-23 have been examined, and claim 9 has been cancelled.
Claims 1, 10, 11, 19, and 20 were amended; Claim 6 was also amended.
This action is made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 14 May 2026 is filed and considered by the examiner.
Incorporated with the IDS submitted on 14 May 2026 is a compliant statement by the Applicant of IDS Size Fee according to 37 C.F.R. § 1.17(v).
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. § 101 Arguments –Abstract Idea.
Applicant’s Remarks, see pages 9-11, filed 14 May 20265, regarding 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
In the Applicants’ arguments, on pages 14-15, the applicants’ assertions that the claims cannot be in the abstract idea category of certain methods of organizing human activity for “Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People” because a human cannot perform the computer-implemented functions, are not persuasive. First, the Examiner did not assert the abstract idea of mental processes, which would assert human performed tasks. Instead, the certain methods of organizing human activity category, in the context of the instant claims, is about managing social processes, like the connections between people, and includes the personal behaviors of choice in a user interface. That is, as is asserted by the applicant, on page 16, the certain methods of organizing human activity category of abstract ideas includes managing personal behaviors or interpersonal interactions, which is synonymous with what is recited in the claims. As such, the claims utilize the functions above to manipulate interactions and behaviors between users utilizing personal relationship and contact data accessed by the system to drive personal behaviors or relationships, or interactions between people as disclosed in paragraph [0033] of instant specification.
The applicants’ assertions, on pages 16-18, that the claims impose meaningful limits on the judicial exception because they improve upon the functioning of a computer that reflects an improvement in interaction system technology, are not persuasive. The applicant does not address the office action bases of rejection that are rooted in the MPEP. The applicants’ arguments are rooted in assertions of conclusion with analyses or rules as set forth in the MPEP. The applicants’ proposed improvements from page 18 are not divided to show which elements are the abstract ideas that are asserted to be integrated into practical applications, or which elements are additional elements that are indicative of said integration in the ¶’s starting with “first,” second,” or “third.” The applicant fails to assert, throughout all of the assertions from pages 14 to 24, which claim language they are delineating as the abstract ideas or which elements are considered additional elements. The practical application assertion requires at least one additional element that indicates integration of the identified abstract ideas by improving the function of a computer. In such a case of improvement to the functioning of a computer, the additional element is the computer, i.e. computing structures. In the instant claims, the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection asserts that the computing structures are merely tools applied to perform the abstract ideas and the applicant does not present any rules or analyses to the contrary aside from pure conclusory statements.
That is, since the applicant identifies no abstract ideas, there are no abstract ideas to integrate the claims, as a whole, into an improvement to the functioning of a computer, especially where the computing structures were found to be applied as tools to implement the Examiner identified abstract ideas. Further, the Examiner found that the claims generally link the use of the abstract ideas to the technical environment of computer applied instructions. Therefore, the claims do not apply the judicial exceptions in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract ideas to the environment of computing structures, i.e. the claims are no more than a mere drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
On pages 18-19, the applicant asserts that the claims are synonymous with Core Wireless, such that the claimed user interface includes graphical user elements that may be selected, that drive the privacy and the establish relationships, which are not persuasive. The claims recite merely displaying the data that is selectable, and once selected, the selection data is received, and relationship is changed to reflect the update. The specification does not reveal that the core of the invention is directed to advances in data storage, databases, data permissions, data display, the displays themselves, accessing data, using data, enabling users to perform functions, displaying data, graphical user displays, or sending and receiving, i.e. transmitting data, or selecting (sending and receiving) of data. This analysis departs from that of Core Wireless, because Core Wireless was focused on a specific operational state of the graphical user display. In Core Wireless, an application summary had to display while the target applications, represented by the graphical elements, were in a specific unlaunched state, i.e. not running or displayed, which improved the efficiency and functioning of small computing structures. The displayed data was strictly delimited to a specific type of information meant to let a user view app status or launch functions faster, solving the traditional small-screen problem of having to "drill down through many layers."
Aside from the existence of privacy control and relationship controls that are visualized in the user interface graphics, the elements merely send and receive user choices without eliminating or simplifying the function of the computing structures. The computing structures merely display and send/receive/display data, which, as discussed above, are not an improvement or advancement according to the specification. Conditional display is also merely a send/receive/display function of data, i.e. the system sends/receives the user selection, and returns, i.e. sends/receives an alternate display visualization at the graphical user interface. Therefore, the assertions that Core Wireless and the instant claims are synonymous and therefore the instant claims improve upon graphical user interface architecture, are not persuasive, and the rejection is upheld.
The applicants’ assertion, on page 20, that the amended claim applies the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, is neither persuasive nor probative. According to the MPEP section, 2106.05(b), the machine must be particularly and specifically identified (not any and all machines). In the case of the instant claims, the computing structures are general-purpose computing structures, i.e. they are not specifically identified. The computing structures may be any off the shelf computing structures as recited. The user interface elements, filtering elements, relationship elements, or any other elements that are asserted to be architectural elements or architectural operation, cannot be a particular machine because the machine is a physical object, not a software-based element. The applicants’ assertions, on page 21, that amended claim 1 cannot be characterized as insignificant extra-solution activity, are neither persuasive nor probative because the Examiner made no such assertions.
Since the claims are not integrated into a practical application, the claims cannot amount to significantly more. This is especially true because the applicant did not identify the abstract ideas nor additional elements, nor argue which additional elements amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas.
Please find the updated 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection below reflecting the amendments. The 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection is Maintained.
35 U.S.C. § 103 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 24-26, filed 14 May 2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. The applicants’ arguments only address a few, choice elements, from the expanse of remaining and amended claim language. Further, the applicants’ arguments attack the obviousness rejection by asserting a truncated set of citations from the prior art that amount to a piecemeal analysis of the references without addressing the full scope of the citations as applied to the full scope of claim language. That is, the applicant truncated both their claim language and the prior art citations in order to argue that the instant claims are patentable over the prior art. Therefore, due to expansive amendments, the Examiner has reexamined the previous claims limitations and examined the new limitations to find that the same prior art remains obvious over the amended claims are.
Please find the updated 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection below to reflect the amended claim language. The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection updates to the citations were necessitated by expansive amendments, however the rejection prior art is maintained.
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6, 10-16, and 18-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent Claims
Regarding Claims 1, 19, and 20: The claims recite the following functions: use contact data and relationship data to generate composite contact data, generate contact records, identify common and uncommon relationships between user’s, identify users, identify contact records, generated composite data, enable user to contact or not contact based on relationship, which are all abstract idea in the category “certain methods of organizing human activity,” more specifically “Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People” because the claims utilize the functions above to manipulate interactions and behaviors between users utilizing personal relationship and contact data accessed by the system to drive personal behaviors or relationships, or interactions between people (see paragraph [0033] of Application Specification) (MPEP 2105.04(a)(2)(II)).
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim also recites non-functional descriptive information that carry no patentable weight – they do not positively recite any additional functions that limit the claims or the structures of the claims. The claim recites accessing data, enabling users to perform functions, determining a second user, filtering the user data to identify users without direct relationships, transmitting messages, causing display of data, using data, displaying message data, and permitting or allowing and disallowing contact. The specification does not reveal that the core of the invention is directed to advances in data storage, databases, data permissions, data display, the displays themselves, accessing data, using data, enabling users to perform functions, or sending and receiving, i.e. transmitting data. These limitations are disclosed at a high level of generality. Instead, the specification is focused on the nature of the data being received, sent, displayed, maintained, permitted, initiated, enabled, distinguished, provided, combined, generated, or matched, by the systems – i.e., the descriptive nature of the data (MPEP 2106.05(e)). These limitations are not abstract ideas and do not amount to a practical application of an abstract idea.
The claims recite the following additional elements: in claims 1, 19, and 20: an interaction system; additionally recited for claim 19: A computing apparatus including at least one processor and a memory storing instructions configured such that, when executed in cooperation with controlling the at least one processor, the instructions operate the apparatus to perform operations comprising; and additionally recited for claim 20: A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, the computer-readable storage medium including instructions that when executed by the at least one computer, cause the at least one computer to perform operations comprising. The application specification discloses in paragraph [0040], [0041], [0196], [0211], [0245], [0257], [0259], [0260], and [0262], that the interaction system is comprised of multiple user systems and devices, communicatively coupled via the internet/network to servers and third-party servers that user devices, computing devices, and various server devices to perform functions and data interactions. Therefore, according to disclosure of the specification, claims 1, 19, and 20 recite the additional elements as general purpose computing structures recited at a high level of generality without providing advances in the technology or improvements to the computing structures themselves. Additionally, the specification discloses in paragraph [0036] “the technical problem of improving the efficiency or intuitiveness of an interaction system is further addressed or alleviated.” These recitations amount to “apply it,” mere instructions to apply the Judicial Exceptions on generic computing structures, where additionally claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The functions above are recited as utilizing general-purpose computing structures. The specification does not reveal that the core of the invention is directed to advances in database architecture, configuration architecture, API architecture, data generation techniques, data analysis techniques, data sorting techniques, data matching techniques, data determining techniques, data structure, display and display interfaces or techniques, data storage techniques, or improvements to the characterization of data. In fact, the claim only recites the steps to achieve the outcomes that merely confine the use of the abstract ideas to particular technological environments and thus fail to add an inventive concept to the claims, therefore, they do not provide for practical applications of the judicial exceptions (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claims, as a whole, while looking at additional elements individually and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04).
Step 2B: The analysis for Step 2A, Prong 2 above is commensurate with this analysis for Step 2B, such that the same additional elements taken individually and in combination do not result in the claims, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exceptions (MPEP 2106.05).
Dependent Claims
Regarding Claims 2-6, 10-16, 18, and 21-23: The claims recite further elements related to functions of claim 1. These activities do not differentiate the claims from the related activities in the parent.
The functions of claim 2 merely narrow how the abstract ideas may be performed but do not make the claims any less abstract. The steps of generating composite contact data include matching contact data, incorporating contact data according to matches between contact records and contact data, which are extensions of the same abstract idea "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" concepts in claim 1, which the non-abstract idea elements of accessing data, sending or receiving data, displaying data, and storing data without improvements to databases, accessing, sending or receiving, display, or storing data technologies. The limitations cannot be relied upon to integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application, nor are they elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when viewing the claims as a whole, while looking at additional elements individually and in combination.
The functions of claims 3-5 merely narrow how the abstract ideas may be performed but do not make the claims any less abstract. Claim 3 further limits the causing display steps, further displaying a comingled list of contact identifiers including the first and second contact identifiers. Claim 4 further limits claim 3 such that the contact identifiers are visually distinguishable from each other. Claim 5 further limits the display in claim 4 of the contact identifier to comprise or not comprise a non-friend indicator. These three claims are extensions of the "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" concepts in claim 1, while not being abstract ideas themselves. They are merely displaying data equivalent to adding non-functional descriptive characterizations to the visual display without improvements to display technologies, with reliance upon previous claims to perform functions. The limitations cannot be relied upon to integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application, nor are they elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when viewing the claims as a whole, while looking at additional elements individually and in combination.
The functions of claim 6 merely narrow how the abstract ideas may be performed but do not make the claims any less abstract. The claim records a relationship type in the relationship data, bidirectional relationships between users, which are extensions of the "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" concepts in claim 1, but are not abstract ideas themselves. They are merely adding data, equivalent to adding non-functional descriptive characterizations with reliance upon previous claims to perform functions. The limitations cannot be relied upon to integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application, nor are they elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when viewing the claims as a whole, while looking at additional elements individually and in combination.
The functions of claims 10-11 merely narrow how the abstract ideas may be performed but do not make the claims any less abstract. The claims limit the bidirectional relationship establishment to enable: for claim 10: the shared data to be predetermined data; for claim 11: automatic sharing of user-generated content, between users, which are extensions of the same abstract idea "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" concepts in claim 1, but are non-abstract idea elements of displaying, including, sending, sharing, declaring, or receiving data, without revealing improvements to display, sending and receiving, or sharing technologies, and with reliance upon previous claims to perform functions. The limitations cannot be relied upon to integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application, nor are they elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when viewing the claims as a whole, while looking at additional elements individually and in combination.
The functions of claim 12 merely narrow how the abstract ideas may be performed but do not make the claims any less abstract. The claim limits the generating composite data step of claim 2, to include accessing non-user contact data and contact records from a third-party application, causing visually distinguishable display of the non-user in the composite contact data, and enabling the specific user to invite the non-user to register, which are extensions of the same abstract idea "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" concepts in claim 1, which are non-abstract idea elements of accessing data, sending or receiving data, and storing data without improvements to databases, accessing, sending or receiving, display, or storing data technologies. They are merely adding graphical display characterizations to the displayed data, equivalent to adding non-functional descriptive visual display characterizations, without improvements to display, touch and interactive controls or displays, or privacy/security control technologies, with reliance upon previous claims to perform functions. The limitations cannot be relied upon to integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application, nor are they elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when viewing the claims as a whole, while looking at additional elements individually and in combination.
The functions of claim 13 merely narrow how the abstract ideas may be performed but do not make the claims any less abstract. The claim limits the enabling invitation limitation such that the user interface displays a selectable graphical element, when selected, sends the invitation to register to the non-user, which are extensions of the same abstract idea "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" concepts in claim 1, which are non-abstract idea elements of displaying, sending, and receiving data. They are merely adding graphical display characterizations to the displayed data, equivalent to adding non-functional descriptive visual display characterizations, without improvements to display, touch and interactive controls or displays, or privacy/security control technologies, with reliance upon previous claims to perform functions. The limitations cannot be relied upon to integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application, nor are they elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when viewing the claims as a whole, while looking at additional elements individually and in combination.
The functions of claims 14-16 merely narrow how the abstract ideas may be performed but do not make the claims any less abstract. Claim 14 further limits the third-party application to a contact management application. Claim 15 further limits the third-party application to a third-party communication application. Claim 16 limits the third-party application to a device hosted application, the device of at least one of the specific users, the first user or the second user. These three claims are extensions of the "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" concepts in claim 1, while not being abstract ideas themselves. They are merely limiting the software application to applications with different characterizations, with reliance upon previous claims to perform functions. The limitations cannot be relied upon to integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application, nor are they elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when viewing the claims as a whole, while looking at additional elements individually and in combination.
The functions of claim 18 merely narrow how the abstract ideas may be performed but do not make the claims any less abstract. The claim limits generating composite contact data by determining based on output generated by a recommendation engine of the system, that the composite data includes the second contact record, automatically presenting the comingled list of identifier data in a user interface, the identifiers for each user relative to other contact identifiers in the list, which are extensions of the same abstract idea "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" concepts in claim 1, and the non-abstract idea elements of displaying, sending, and receiving data. These claims are an interaction system, applying a general-purpose recommendation engine recited at a high level of generality, generally linked to a particular field of used, applied on general-purpose computing structures (MPEP 2016.05 (f) and (h)). The limitations cannot be relied upon to integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application, nor are they elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when viewing the claims as a whole, while looking at additional elements individually and in combination.
The functions of claim 23 merely narrow how the abstract ideas may be performed but do not make the claims any less abstract. Claim 21 merely recites enabling a user to invite a user to join, causing display of data, user selection of a displayed element and causing transmission, which are not abstract ideas. The specification does not reveal that the core of the invention is directed to advances in data storage, databases, data permissions, data display, the displays themselves, accessing data, using data, enabling users to perform functions, or sending and receiving, i.e. transmitting data. These limitations are not abstract ideas and do not amount to a practical application of an abstract idea.
The functions of claim 22 merely narrow how the abstract ideas may be performed but do not make the claims any less abstract. Claim 22 merely recites causing data display which is not an abstract idea. The specification does not reveal that the core of the invention is directed to advances in data storage, databases, data permissions, data display, the displays themselves, accessing data, using data, enabling users to perform functions, or sending and receiving, i.e. transmitting data. These limitations are not abstract ideas and do not amount to a practical application of an abstract idea.
The functions of claim 23 merely narrow how the abstract ideas may be performed but do not make the claims any less abstract. Claim 23 merely recites enabling a user to invite a user to join, causing display of data, user selection of a displayed element and causing transmission, which are not abstract ideas. The specification does not reveal that the core of the invention is directed to advances in data storage, databases, data permissions, data display, the displays themselves, accessing data, using data, enabling users to perform functions, or sending and receiving, i.e. transmitting data. These limitations are not abstract ideas and do not amount to a practical application of an abstract idea.
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 1-6, 10-16, and 18-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Velummylum, US20160044087A1 in view of Marlow, WO2009088671A1.
Regarding Claims 1, 19, and 20: Velummylum discloses: Claim 1 preamble: A method comprising:; Claim 19 preamble: A computing apparatus including at least one processor and a memory storing instructions configured such that, when executed in cooperation with controlling the at least one processor, the instructions operate the apparatus to perform operations comprising; Claim 20 preamble: A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, the computer-readable storage medium including instructions that when executed by at least one computer, cause the least one computer to perform operations comprising: maintaining, for an interaction system:
maintaining, for an interaction system:
first electronic contact data for a plurality of users of the interaction system, and [0056] “maintain one or more contact lists for each of their users,”
relationship data relating to relationships between the plurality of users of the interaction system, the relationship data indicating, for each pair of users, one of a bidirectional relationship, a one-directional relationship, or no direct relationship exists between a pair of users; [0061] “the trust relationship embedded in a user's contact lists may be exploited to validate a user's relationship with the people on his contact list and/or to further extend trust levels among them,” [0012] (a user sends a friend request, i.e. a one-directional relationship), [0014] (a pair of users with no direct relationship in the system; a pair of users with a bi-directional relationship), [0028] (symmetrical communications, i.e. bi-directional), [0069] (a user may search for new friends or acquaintances where there may be no direct relationship between the user and the searched user);
accessing second electronic contact data associated with a third-party application on a first device of a specific user; [0018 and Figure 3] (one of client devices 112-118, i.e. at least a first, a second, and a third user device), [0055-0056] (contact data and lists for users from social media accounts, i.e. the interaction system, and contact data and lists from the third-party communication services network), [0018] (a plurality of user’s having their own device or devices), [0072] (specific user);
determining a second user in the second electronic contact data that lacks a direct relationship with the specific user In the relationship data; [0055-0056] (contact data and lists for a plurality of users from a plurality of social media accounts, i.e. the interaction system, and contact data and lists from the third-party communication services network), [0067] (determine a plurality of users in the contact data from the plurality of second contact data from external applications, including users that do not have a relationship in the system), [0072] (a second user in the electronic contact data), [0069] (a user may search for new friends or acquaintances where there may be no direct relationship between the user and the searched user), [0018] (a plurality of user’s having their own device or devices);
using the first electronic contact data and the relationship data, automatically generating composite electronic contact data responsive to the determination, the composite electronic contact data, including: [0065] “Each of these contact lists may be used to create new contacts on the present or another network based on the implied trust relationship,” [0067] (determine a plurality of users in the contact data from the plurality of second contact data from external applications, including users that do not have a relationship in the system), [0068] “software application may upload the requesting user's phonebook, compare it row by row, with an internal FSN member list, and create a new partitioned phonebook.”
the first electronic contact record for a first user of the interaction system with which the specific user of the interaction system has either a bidirectional relationship or a one-directional relationship as reflected in the relationship data, and [0076] (privacy settings that may allow a user to be blocked without approval or any other various degrees of trust, it would be reasonable for a person having ordinary skill in the art to assert a privacy setting according to the claim; the disclosure presents no limits, i.e. the number of messages may be set to zero and the trust level may be set to zero and fulfill the claim according to the prior art) [0012] (a user sends a friend request, i.e. a one-directional relationship), [0014] (a pair of users with no direct relationship in the system; a pair of users with a bi-directional relationship), [0028] (symmetrical communications, i.e. bi-directional);
a second electronic contact record for a second user of the interaction system with which the specific user has no direct relationship as reflected in the relationship data; [0067] “the requesting user still has a good user experience and can add new friends to his FSN contact list,” (i.e. the new friend has no relationship to the specific user in the system; determine a plurality of users in the contact data from the plurality of second contact data from external applications, including users that do not have a relationship in the system), [0069] “FSN members or users may also search for other FSN users by usernames. An exact match on a username may display the matched user's public profile (for example, first name and photo). FSN may also allow users the ability to turn off public profile visibility, in which case an exact username match may still return no results, and the only way to add friends to their FSN contact lists is by already knowing the friend's phone numbers (implying a more personal relationship), email address, or other unique identifiers,” [0076] (privacy settings that may allow a user to be blocked without approval or any other various degrees of trust, it would be reasonable for a person having ordinary skill in the art to assert a privacy setting according to the claim; the disclosure presents no limits, i.e. the number of messages may be set to zero and the trust level may be set to zero and fulfill the claim according to the prior art);”
causing display of the composite electronic contact data at the first device of the specific user, wherein the display of the composite electronic contact data comprises visually distinguishing display of the first electronic contact record from display of the second electronic contact record; and [0018 and Figure 3] (one of client devices 112-118, i.e. at least a first, a second, and a third user device), [0019] (display data on at least a plurality of user devices which may represent at least a first, second, and third user, wherein the graphical display occurs on the screen), [Figure 5B] (display of composite contact data comprising visually distinguishing display of contact data into different categories based on trust and connection within system and from 3rd-party systems), [0068] “easily make member and non-member entries of the phonebook distinguishable;”
determining a that the second user and the specific user have no direct relationship in the relationship data and a privacy setting of the second user permits electronic interactions with users having no direct relationship with the second user as reflected in the relationship data; [Figure 5B] (plus (+) button to add a friend), [0076] (the system checks to determine there is no direct relationship; the availability of the friend request, i.e. plus (+) button from [Figure 5b], discloses that the specific user and the second user, each, have privacy settings that permit electronic interactions with users and the add friend implicitly discloses the users have no direct relationship; a privacy setting that blocks electronic interaction would remove the users from view of each other, i.e. the plus button or user data may not be visible);
enabling the specific user of the interaction system to initiate an electronic interaction with the second user using the second electronic contact record despite the second user and the specific user having no direct relationship in the relationship data based on the determined privacy setting of the second user, the electronic interaction initiated by transmitting an electronic message from the first device to an interaction server system over a network, the interaction server system routing the electronic message to a second device of the second user, based on the determined privacy setting; [0012] ( a user may request to send a message to another user, where the other user may not be a friend or have a bi-directional or one-directional relationship within the particular service, i.e. even if the users know each other in real life, they may have not relationship on the social media service in question), [0026] (a server system over a network that connects first and second devices to route messages between users), [0055] (interaction environment over the server systems to facilitate communications over networks), [0001] “preserving user privacy,” [0068] (enable contact lists filled with a plurality of contact records to be used to create new contacts for the user on one or more interaction systems based on implied trust), [0081] (user sends a message to another use, the message is selectively sent to a quarantine inbox or regular inbox based on privacy settings and trust level), [0070] (users without a relationship to the specific user), [0071] (each global identifier represents a person on the contacts list, i.e. the contact identifiers on the contact list from [0068] are enabled to be used by the user to initiate an interaction with another user), [0076] (privacy settings that may allow a user message to be allowed if no privacy prohibitions exist);
causing display the electronic message in a messaging user interface at a second device of the second user, the electronic message being displayed in the messaging user interface together with a set of privacy control graphical elements, and a relationship establishing graphical element, the relationship establishing graphical element being user-selectable by the second user to invite the specific user to establish a bidirectional relationship within the interaction system, and one or more privacy control graphical elements in the set of privacy control graphical elements being user-selectable to allow or disallow communications with the specific user without adding the bidirectional relationship or the one-directional relationship between the specific user and the second user in the relationship data upon user selection of any of the privacy control graphical elements in the set, of the second user permits electronic interactions with users having no direct relationship with the second user; [0041] “include a touch sensitive screen arranged to receive input from an object such as a stylus or a digit from a human hand,” and “rendering graphic-intensive outputs on the display unit,” (where it would be reasonable to anticipate that the touch screen on the display unit would be used for interacting with any graphical elements), [0057] “quick postings or opinions “Like” button (to signify a favorable evaluation of another post or page,) bulletin board style comments, and group sharing, among other specialized and/or streamlined features,” (where the mere display of the “like” button implicitly discloses a privacy setting that permits electronic interactions, i.e. allowing interactions with users through a graphical user interface on any of a plurality of devices, and the like button is a user selectable control graphical element, when the user selects to click, to allow, or when the user selects to not click, or disallow communications, without adding a one or two directional relationship), [Figure 5B] (plus (+) sign next to user identifier allowing a specific user to choose send a message by clicking the user name or to add a friend by clicking the + button; the demarcation of the user names show different connection types within the social system like bi/one/no direction relationships within the system), [0076] (the system checks to determine there is no direct relationship, availability of the invite button discloses permission for interactions with users by the second user, enhanced by privacy settings of the requesting user and/or the invited friend, i.e. the invited friend may have a privacy setting that prohibits adding his name to anybody else's list unless explicitly approved) and “enhanced by privacy settings of the requesting user and/or the invited friend.”
receiving, by the interaction server system, data from the second device that represents selection of the relationship establishing graphical element by the second user; [0073] (the friend request is received by the servers and sent to the second user via their device), [0075] (the interaction server receives data that the second user chose to accept the Friend Request from the second device that represents a relationship establishing graphical element selection by the second user, said selection data is in the form of a response to a friend request in response to the request message from the first user via the first device);
updating the relationship data to establish the bidirectional relationship between the second user and the specific user in the interaction system responsive to receiving the data that represents selection of the relationship establishing graphical element; [0075] (the user accepts the friend request establishing the bidirectional relationship between the users, the system updates the displayed and system relationship in the interaction system);
and responsive to establishment of the bidirectional relationship: automatically enabling, by the interaction server system, sharing of data between the specific user and the second user that was not shared prior to the establishment of the bidirectional relationship; [0075] (in response to the user accepting the friend request that establishes the bidirectional relationship between the users, the system automatically enables the user’s data to update such that data is shared between the second user and specific user that was not previously shared prior to the relationship establishment.);
Where Velummylum does not disclose, Marlow teaches:
and one or more privacy control graphical elements in the set of privacy control graphical elements being user-selectable to allow or disallow communications wherein the set of privacy control graphical elements are conditionally displayed in the messaging user interface based on the determination that the second user and the specific user have no direct relationship in the relationship data and the determined privacy setting [Figure 9 and 0054] (display of privacy control graphical user interface elements that are user selectable to allow or disallow communications with a specific user, selectively displayed to a user such that a later button selectively allows the user to not be blocked and a reject button excludes the user conditionally based on the determination that the selection was made and that there is no direct relationship), [0031] (communications between users that may or may not have a relationship).
and updating the messaging user interface by replacing the relationship establishing graphical element with one or more user-selectable graphical elements that were unavailable prior to the establishment of the bidirectional relationship; [0052] “the attributes which are weighted are presented to the user on a slider control (or the equivalent) along with the default weights. The user can then move the slider around and change the weights and the contact list refreshes with the new weights. When the user is done, these weights may be saved as specific to the user.”
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to use a known technique to improve similar systems in the same way. The prior art of Velummylum contains a base device upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement. The prior art of Marlow contained a comparable system that is different from the base device, that has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have applied the known improvement technique in the same way to the base system and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2: Velummylum discloses, and Marlow teaches: The method of claim 1,
Velummylum discloses: wherein the generating of the composite electronic contact data comprises:
performing a matching operation between the first electronic contact data and the second electronic contact data; and [0068] “friend finder software application may upload the requesting user's phonebook, compare it row by row, with an internal FSN member list, and create a new partitioned phonebook with the two partitions mentioned above;”
including the second electronic contact data within the composite electronic contact data based on determining a match between an electronic data record in the second electronic contact data and the second electronic contact record. [0068] “Those skilled in the art will appreciate that the partitioning may be implemented by creating two separate sections in the phonebook, by marking the phonebook entries as being member or non-member, or by any other techniques that can easily make member and non-member entries of the phonebook distinguishable, [0076] (privacy settings that may allow a user to be blocked without approval or any other various degrees of trust, it would be reasonable for a person having ordinary skill in the art to assert a privacy setting according to the claim; the disclosure presents no limits, i.e. the number of messages may be set to zero and the trust level may be set to zero and fulfill the claim according to the prior art).
Regarding claim 3: Velummylum discloses, and Marlow teaches: The method of claim 1,
Velummylum discloses: wherein the causing display of the composite electronic contact data within the interaction system comprises causing display, in a user interface at a first device, of a commingled list of contact identifiers including a first contact identifier for the first user and a second contact identifier for the second user. [0018 and Figure 3] (one of client devices 112-118, i.e. at least a first, a second, and a third user device), [0019] (display data on at least a plurality of user devices which may represent at least a first, second, and third user, wherein the graphical display occurs on the screen), [Figure 5B] (user interface display of composite contact data comprising visually distinguishing display of contact data into different categories based on trust and connection within system and from 3rd-party system), [0068]” easily make member and non-member entries of the phonebook distinguishable,” [0076] (privacy settings that may allow a user to be blocked without approval or any other various degrees of trust, it would be reasonable for a person having ordinary skill in the art to assert a privacy setting according to the claim; the disclosure presents no limits, i.e. the number of messages may be set to zero and the trust level may be set to zero and fulfill the claim according to the prior art). [0018 and Figure 3] (one of client devices 112-118, i.e. at least a first, a second, and a third user device), [0019] (display data on at least a plurality of user devices which may represent at least a first, second, and third user, wherein the graphical display occurs on the screen).
Regarding claim 4: Velummylum discloses, and Marlow teaches: The method of claim 3,
Velummylum discloses: wherein the display of the commingled list comprises visually distinguishing the first contact identifier from the second contact identifier within the commingled list. [Figure 5B] (user interface display of composite contact data comprising visually distinguishing display of contact data into different categories based on trust and connection within system and from 3rd-party system), [0068]” easily make member and non-member entries of the phonebook distinguishable,” [0076] (privacy settings that may allow a user to be blocked without approval or any other various degrees of trust, it would be reasonable for a person having ordinary skill in the art to assert a privacy setting according to the claim; the disclosure presents no limits, i.e. the number of messages may be set to zero and the trust level may be set to zero and fulfill the claim according to the prior art).
Regarding claim 5: Velummylum discloses, and Marlow teaches: The method of claim 4,
Velummylum discloses: wherein the second contact identifier comprises a non-friend indicator and the first contact identifier does not comprise the non-friend indicator. [Figure 5B] (user interface display user’s that are not friends).
Regarding claim 6: Velummylum discloses, and Marlow teaches: The method of claim 1,
Velummylum discloses: wherein the relationship data records the bidirectional relationship, within the interaction system, between the specific user and the first user. [Figure 5B] (user interface display contacts that have accepted friend request allowing bidirectional relationship), [0070] “Entries 556 on top of listing 552 may include complete information about friends who have explicitly asked for or agreed to be added to the user's contact list 550. Entries 558 belong to the partition that indicates the entries are in the user's phonebook, different from his contact list 550, and also have accounts on the FSN. Entries 562 in section 560 includes contacts of the user who are only his phonebook and not on the friend’s social network.”
Regarding claim 10: Velummylum discloses, & Marlow teaches: The method of claim 1,
Velummylum discloses: wherein the shared data includes predetermined data between the specific user and the second user, within the interaction system. [0062] “FIG. 4A shows an example social network with a user and friends, … Each user of the social network 402 may have one or more contact lists 410-412, which he uses to communicate or share information with his friends or acquaintances,” [0065] “Each of these contact lists may be used to create new contacts on the present or another network based on the implied trust relationship,” [0068] “software application may upload the requesting user's phonebook, compare it row by row, with an internal FSN member list, and create a new partitioned phonebook.”
Regarding claim 11: Velummylum discloses, & Marlow teaches: The method of claim 1,
Velummylum discloses: wherein inviting the second user to establish the bidirectional relationship with the specific user within the context of an interaction system comprises inviting the second user to establish a bidirectional relationship in terms of which the interaction system automatically shares user-generated content between the specific user and the second user. [0065] “Each of these contact lists may be used to create new contacts on the present or another network based on the implied trust relationship,” [0068] “software application may upload the requesting user's phonebook, compare it row by row, with an internal FSN member list, and create a new partitioned phonebook,” [0074] “In the second scenario (friend not a member of FSN), FSN may pre-create an FSN global identifier for the particular friend, and then follow the same procedure as the first scenario. When the invited friend later signs up for FSN, the friend may then “claim” his pre-allocated global identifier”
Regarding claim 12: Velummylum discloses, and Marlow teaches: The method of claim 2, further comprising:
Velummylum discloses:
accessing third electronic contact data, the third electronic contact data being associated with the third-party application, and the third electronic contact data including a third electronic contact record for a non-user of the interaction system; [0055-0056] (contact data and lists for users from social media accounts, i.e. the interaction system, and contact data and lists from the third-party communication services network);
causing display of the third electronic contact record together with the composite electronic contact data within the interaction system, wherein the display of the third electronic contact record comprises visually distinguishing display of the third electronic contact record from both the first electronic contact record and the second electronic contact record; and [Figure 5B] (display of composite contact data comprising visually distinguishing display of contact data into different categories based on trust and connection within system and from 3rd-party system), [0068]” easily make member and non-member entries of the phonebook distinguishable;”
enabling the specific user of the interaction system to invite the non-user to register with the interaction system using the third electronic contact record. [0074] “In the second scenario (friend not a member of FSN), FSN may pre-create an FSN global identifier for the particular friend, and then follow the same procedure as the first scenario. When the invited friend later signs up for FSN, the friend may then “claim” his pre-allocated global identifier.”
Regarding claim 13: Velummylum discloses, & Marlow teaches: The method of claim 12,
Velummylum discloses: wherein enabling the specific user of the interaction system to invite the non-user to register with the interaction system comprises causing display, in a user interface at a user device, of a user-selectable invitation graphical element in association with the third electronic contact record, user selection of the invitation graphical element causing transmission of a registration invitation to a device of the non-user. [0081] “sending messages from one user to a friend performs in a similar fashion to adding friends. If the sender has not yet added this friend to his friends list or contact list, then procedures are performed similar to those of adding a friend described above,” and [0075] “When the invited friend later accepts the Friend Request, the requesting user's temporary profile information for the invited friend may be replaced by the friend's actual and more comprehensive profile information, that the friends may have provided to FSN upon enrollment. This way, the particular friend's privacy is protected until he accepts the Friend Request from the requesting user and a trust relationship is further established,” [0057] “quick postings or opinions such as “Like” button (to signify a favorable evaluation of another post or page,) bulletin board style comments and group sharing, among other specialized and/or streamlined features,” [0041] “include a touch sensitive screen arranged to receive input from an object such as a stylus or a digit from a human hand,” [0041] “rendering graphic-intensive outputs on the display unit,” [0018 and Figure 3] (one of client devices 112-118, i.e. at least a first, a second, and a third user device), [0019] (display data on at least a plurality of user devices which may represent at least a first, second, and third user, wherein the graphical display occurs on the screen).
Regarding claim 14: Velummylum discloses, & Marlow teaches: The method of claim 2,
Velummylum discloses: wherein the third-party application is a contact management application. [0056] “The other communication services 302 and 318 may be similar to Gmail®, Yahoo mail®, Outlook. Om®, private corporate enterprise networks, government networks, and the like.”
Regarding claim 15: Velummylum discloses, & Marlow teaches: The method of claim 1,
Velummylum discloses: wherein the third-party application is a third-party communication application. [0056] “The other communication services 302 and 318 may be similar to Gmail®, Yahoo mail®, Outlook.com®, private corporate enterprise networks, government networks, and the like.”
Regarding claim 16: Velummylum discloses, & Marlow teaches: The method of claim 1,
Velummylum discloses: wherein the third-party application is an application hosted on a device of at least one of: the specific user, the first user, or the second user. [0055] “FIG. 3 shows an example user online interaction environment including social networks and other communication networks, each network with its own set of contact lists,”
Regarding claim 18: Velummylum discloses, & Marlow teaches: The method of claim 1,
Velummylum discloses: wherein the generating of the composite electronic contact data comprises determining, using output generated by a recommendation engine of the interaction system, that the second electronic contact record is to be included in the composite electronic contact data, and wherein the causing display of the composite electronic contact data within the interaction system comprises automatically causing display, in a user interface, of a commingled list of contact identifiers including a first contact identifier for the first user and a second contact identifier for the second user, the second contact identifier being positioned relative to other contact identifiers in the commingled list based on the output generated by the recommendation engine. [0076] (privacy settings that may allow a user to be blocked without approval or any other various degrees of trust, it would be reasonable for a person having ordinary skill in the art to assert a privacy setting according to the claim; the disclosure presents no limits, i.e. the number of messages may be set to zero and the trust level may be set to zero and fulfill the claim according to the prior art).
Regarding claim 21: Velummylum discloses, and Marlow teaches: The computing apparatus of claim 19,
Velummylum discloses: wherein the causing display of the composite electronic contact data comprises causing display, in a user interface at the first device, of a commingled list of contact identifiers including a first contact identifier for the first user and a second contact identifier for the second user. [0018 and Figure 3] (one of client devices 112-118, i.e. at least a first, a second, and a third user device), [0057] (graphical user interface on any of a plurality of devices, used to display and interact with graphical elements related to messages and privacy control to allow or disallow communication), [0065] “Each of these contact lists may be used to create new contacts on the present or another network based on the implied trust relationship,” [Figure 5B] (comingled list of users including at least a first and second user).
Regarding claim 22: Velummylum discloses, and Marlow teaches: The computing apparatus of claim 19,
Velummylum discloses: the operations further comprising: accessing third electronic contact data, the third electronic contact data being associated with the third-party application, and the third electronic contact data including a third electronic contact record for a non-user of the interaction system; causing display of the third electronic contact record together with the composite electronic contact data within the interaction system, wherein the display of the third electronic contact record comprises visually distinguishing display of the third electronic contact record from both the first electronic contact record and the second electronic contact record; and enabling the specific user of the interaction system to invite the non-user to register with the interaction system using the third electronic contact record. [0055-0056] (contact data and lists for users from social media accounts, i.e. the interaction system, and contact data and lists from the third-party communication services network), [Figure 5A] (contact data of at least a first, second, and third user from at least one separate application that is retrieved and combined to create the comingled list in Figure 5B), [Figure 5B] (causing display of the comingled list of users including at least a first, second, and third user; the third user may be from a third part application including non-users of the subject application; Plus (+) sign allowing a user to invite the non-user to register), [0074] (enable a user to pre-register a third user for the social networking site when the user is not a member).
Regarding claim 23: Velummylum discloses, and Marlow teaches: The computing apparatus of claim 22,
Velummylum discloses: wherein enabling the specific user of the interaction system to invite the non-user to register with the interaction system comprises causing display, in a user interface at the first device, of a user-selectable invitation graphical element in association with the third electronic contact record, user selection of the invitation graphical element causing transmission of a registration invitation to a third device of the non-user. [Figure 3] (other social networking applications, i.e. third party), [Figure 5A] (contact data of at least a first, second, and third user from at least one separate application that is retrieved and combined to create the comingled list in Figure 5B), [Figure 5B] (causing display of the comingled list of users including at least a first, second, and third user; the third user may be from a third part application including non-users of the subject application; Plus (+) sign allowing a user to invite the non-user to register),[0073] (allow a user to invite a non-member to join the [0074] (enable a user to pre-register a third user for the social networking site when the user is not a member).
Conclusion
Applicants’ amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA HATCH whose telephone number is (571)270-1393. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00-6:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nathan Uber can be reached at (571)270-3923. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
ANGELA HATCH
Examiner
Art Unit 3626
/ANGELA HATCH/Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/KIERSTEN V SUMMERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights