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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 August 27, 2025 has been entered.
Notice to Applicant
The following is a Non-Final Office Action for Application Serial Number: 18/126,397, filed on March 25, 2023. In response to Examiner's Final Office Action dated May 27, 2025, Applicant on August 27, 2025, amended claims 1, 11 and 17 and cancelled claims 3, 13 and 19. Claims 1, 2, 4-12, 14-18 and 20 are pending in this application and have been rejected below.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendments are acknowledged.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicants arguments and amendments have been considered but are insufficient to overcome the rejection.
The 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejections of claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 10-12, and 16-18 are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s remarks and amendments to claims 1, 11 and 17. New 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections have been applied to amended claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 10-12, and 16-18.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 9 is maintained in light of Applicant’s remarks and amendments to claim 1. The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 4-6, 14, 15 and 20 have been amended in light of Applicant’s remarks and amendments to claims 1, 11 and 17. The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 3, 13 and 19 have been canceled in light of Applicant’s canceling claims 3, 13 and 19.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's Arguments/Remarks filed August 25, 2025 (hereinafter Applicant Remarks) have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant’s Remarks will be addressed herein below in the order in which they appear in the response filed August 25, 2025.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicant states With these amendments Applicant directs attention to Example 37 of the 2019 Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, specifically, Subject Matter Eligibility Examples: Abstract Ideas. In the given example, claim 2 is determined to be eligible under the current section 101, 2-step analysis. The example is directed toward a method for rearranging icons on a GUI, based essentially on frequency of use of the icon.
Like the current claim 1, the example 37 claim is considered in step one to affirmatively fall into a statutory category ("The claim recites a series of steps and, therefore, is a process."). At step 2A, prong 1, the example 37 claim is not to recite a judicial exception because "the claim does not recite a mental process because the claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, does not cover performance in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, the "determining step" now requires action by a processor that cannot be practically applied in the mind. In particular the claimed step of determining the amount of use of each icon by tracking how much memory has been allocated to each application associated with each icon over a predetermined period of time is not practically performed in the human mind, at least because it requires a processor accessing computer memory indicative of application usage… Thus the claim is eligible because it does not recite a judicial exception." Subject Matter Eligibility Examples: Abstract Ideas, pages 3-4.
Likewise, the current claim, as amended, requires the "generating" of a "first user profile" and a "second user profile". Moreover, the current claim requires generating a match score and communicating data between a first and second profile. Like the characterization of the claim elements in example 37, above, the generating and communicating steps require action(s) that cannot be practically applied by the mind. For example, the profile generating may require accessing input data stored in computer memory or receiving input data from one or more external or otherwise associated devices. Therefore, the claim is eligible under 35 USC101, as under Step 2A, Prong 1, the claim does not recite a judicial exception (of describing merely a mental process).
The same reasoning applies mutatis mutandis to independent claims 11 and 17 and the dependent claims by virtue of their dependency. Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that all pending claims are integrated into a practical application, and thus are not directed to an abstract idea. Applicant thus requests the withdrawal of the 101 rejections of all pending claims..
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner finds in Example 37, the claim as a whole integrated the mental process because the additional elements recited a specific manner of automatically moving the most used icons to a position on the GUI closest to the start icon of the computer system based on the determined amount of use, which provides a specific improvement over prior systems, resulting in an improved user interface for electronic devices. Examiner notes Applicant does not claim any interfaces to consider and also finds no similar improvements to a graphical user interface is disclosed in the present invention. Examiner respectfully reminds Applicant, general purpose computer elements/structure, similar to the claimed inventions, used to apply a judicial exception, by use of instruction implemented on a computer, has not been found by the courts to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application; see MPEP 2106.05(f). Applicant has not identified any disclosure in the claimed invention showing and/or submitting that technology used is being improved, there was a problem in the technology that the claimed invention solved, or the ordered combinations of the known elements is significantly more than determining match scores to connect two user profiles. Applicant has not presented an argument or identified any disclosure that would alter this analysis. For at least these reasons the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 10-13, filed August 27, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1, 2, 4-12, 14-18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 have been fully considered. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made. Applicant’s arguments are considered moot because they are directed to newly amended subject matter and do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection. Please refer to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection for further explanation and rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-12, 14-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: the personalized element being communicated between the first user profile and second profile.
Claims 1, 11 and 17 have antecedent basis with the limitation "communicating… the second profile". Claims 1, 11 and 17 already recite "the second user profile". It is unclear if the second profiles are different or if the grammar is causing confusion, and is actually referring to the same "user profile" for the second user each time it is mentioned within the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner is interpreting "the second profile" as reciting "the second user profile".
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.
Step 1: The claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Claims 1, 2 and 4-10 are directed towards a computer-implemented method, claims 10-12 and 14-16 are directed towards a computer system and claims 17, 18 and 20 are directed towards a computer program product, which are among the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A – Prong One: The claims recite an abstract idea.
Claims 1, 2, 4-12, 15-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite determining match scores to connect two user profiles.
Claim 1 recites limitations directed to an abstract idea based on certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes. Specifically, generating, based on input data, a first user profile, wherein the first user profile is associated with a first particular date; generating, based on input data, a second user profile, wherein the second user profile is associated with a second particular date; identifying a first value from a first user profile, wherein the first value is indicative of a type of preferred connection with a second user profile; identifying a second value from the second user profile; comparing, using an algorithm, the first value with the second value; generating, based on the comparing, a match score, wherein the match score is indicative of a level of correspondence between the first value and the second value; generating, based on the match score and a compatibility between the first particular date and the second particular date, introduction data; and communicating, based on the introduction data a personalized between the first user profile and the second profile constitutes methods based on managing relationships or interactions between people (including social activities) and methods based on evaluations, observation, judgement and/or opinion that can be performed by a combination of the human mind and a human using pen and paper. The recitation that the method is computer-implemented does not take the claim out of the certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes groupings. Thus the claim recites an abstract idea. Claims 11 and 17 recite certain method of organizing human activity and mental processes for similar reasons as claim 1.
Step 2A – Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites a computer-implemented method at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than generic computer components used as tools to apply the instructions of the abstract idea; see MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea. The computer system comprising at least one processor circuit having a plurality of modules recited in claim 11 and computer program product comprising a computer readable medium having program instructions executable by a computer processing circuit recited in claim 17 also amount to no more than generic computer components used as tools to apply the instructions of the abstract idea; see MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, the additional elements recited in claims 11 and 17 do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application for similar reasons as claim 1.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements in the claims other than the abstract idea per se, including a computer system comprising at least one processor circuit having a plurality of modules and computer program product comprising a computer readable medium having program instructions executable by a computer processing circuit amount to no more than a recitation of generic computer elements utilized to perform generic computer functions, such as receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); and storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claim that transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
§ 101 Analysis of the dependent claims.
Regarding the dependent claims, dependent claims 6-10, 16 recite limitations that are not technological in nature and merely limits the abstract idea to a particular environment. Claim 4, 5, 14, 15, and 20 recites receiving and displaying limitations respectively, which are considered an insignificant extra-solution activities of collecting and delivering data; see MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application. Claim 4, 5, 14, 15 and 20 recites user devices, which merely recites generic computer components used as tools to apply the instructions of the abstract idea; MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, claims 2, 4-10, 12, 14-16, 18 and 20 recite steps that further narrow the abstract idea. Therefore claims 2, 4-10, 12, 14-16, 18 and 20 do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1, 2, 7, 8-12, and 16-18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savjani et al., U.S. Publication No. 2009/0271212 [hereinafter Savjani], and further in view of Madhogarhia, U.S. Publication No. 2007/0239507 [hereinafter Madhogarhia].
Referring to Claim 1, Savjani teaches:
A computer-implemented method for facilitating introductions between two user profiles, the method comprising:
identifying a first value from a first user profile, wherein the first value is indicative of a type of preferred connection with a second user profile; identifying the second value from a second user profile; comparing, using an algorithm, the first value with the second value (Savjani, [0054]), “the user may add and fill-out one or more profiles. Profiles are basically questionnaires that help to identify particular character traits and/or desires of the user as well as character traits and/or desires of the potential match… users will be permitted to have multiple active profiles… A user will be provided with a list of existing profiles broken into categories (sports, college, personal, business, dating, hobbies, etc.) 360…”; (Savjani, Fig. 9, [0062]), “matching can occur across multiple profiles. For example, if two users had both a sports profile 467 and a dating profile 468, the match analytics would not only perform a match score for each profile, but also an overall match score across all the profiles the two users had in common 469”; (Savjani, [0056]), “The matching analytics performs a two-way analysis between profiles…. the matching analytics compares one user's "My Answers" against another user's "What I am Looking For." For example, referring to FIG. 7a, the first user's profile 380 and the second user's profile 382 are compared. Therefore, the first user's "My Answers" portion 384 is compared with the second user's "What I am Looking For" portion 390. Conversely, the second user's "My Answers" portion 388 is compared with the first user's "What I am Looking For" portion 386”; (Savjani, [0055]).
Savjani teaches users may add and fill-out one or more profiles (see par. 0054) and the "match score" calculation is based on analytics performed on a question by question basis (see par. 0057), however Savjani does not explicitly teach:
generating, based on input data, a first user profile, wherein the first user profile is associated with a first particular date;
generating, based on input data, a second user profile, wherein the second user profile is associated with a second particular date;
generating, based on the comparing, a match score, wherein the match score is indicative of a level of correspondence between the first value and the second value;
generating, based on the match score and a compatibility between the first particular date and the second particular date, introduction data; and
communicating, based on the introduction data, a personalized between the first user profile and the second profile.
However Madhogarhia teaches:
generating, based on input data, a first user profile, wherein the first user profile is associated with a first particular date (Madhogarhia, [0050]), “a user completes information requested in one or more network pages. The information requested can include various parameters about the child and/or the parent in order to more effectively match children with each other for play date scheduling”; (Madhogarhia, [0052]), “a child can pre-select a number of desired play dates and the play dates system automatically schedules one or more play dates from the pre-selected list upon the occurrence of an event. The event can include, such as, for example, the completion of the previously scheduled play date, the passage of a period of time, or some other specified event occurrence”; (Madhogarhia, [0062]), “Parameters 803 can include such options as: "find by date and time;" "find by date;"…. or any other information that would be useful in finding a play date. A user can log in and enter information in particular parameters that are important to them. In one embodiment, the parameters are taken from the information entered during registration. The user can enter information in only one parameter, the user can enter information in some parameters, or the user can enter information in every parameter”; (Madhogarhia, [0006]);
generating, based on input data, a second user profile, wherein the second user profile is associated with a second particular date (Madhogarhia, [0006]), “The child schedule database includes a plurality of child schedules…”; (Madhogarhia, [0050]), “a user completes information requested in one or more network pages. The information requested can include various parameters about the child and/or the parent in order to more effectively match children with each other for play date scheduling”; (Madhogarhia, [0052]), “a child can pre-select a number of desired play dates and the play dates system automatically schedules one or more play dates from the pre-selected list upon the occurrence of an event. The event can include, such as, for example, the completion of the previously scheduled play date, the passage of a period of time, or some other specified event occurrence”; (Madhogarhia, Fig. 8, [0062]), “Parameters 803 can include such options as: "find by date and time;" "find by date;"…. or any other information that would be useful in finding a play date. A user can log in and enter information in particular parameters that are important to them. In one embodiment, the parameters are taken from the information entered during registration. The user can enter information in only one parameter, the user can enter information in some parameters, or the user can enter information in every parameter”;
generating, based on the comparing, a match score, wherein the match score is indicative of a level of correspondence between the first value and the second value (Madhogarhia, [0062]), “After the user has entered their information in the parameters, the user can click the search button 807. The system then looks at the parameters entered and searches the database 111 for children with similar matching parameters”; (Madhogarhia, [0054]), “parameters 301 include information pertinent in matching children for play dates. Parameters can include, such as, for example… children the user has had play dates with”; (Madhogarhia, [0088]), “the system identifies matching children. At block 2707, the system searches the schedule database for children whose schedules are available for a play date with the user. At block 2709, the system identifies children whose schedules match with the user schedule. The system then moves on to either block 2711 or block 2713. At block 2711, the system suggests a play date, if there are more than one potential play dates that are identified, either at block 2709 or 2705, then the system picks the play date with the highest percent matching preferences and suggest that play date. If, on the other hand, the system moves on to block 2713, the system suggests a list of matching potential play dates along with the percent of preferences matched with the user”;
generating, based on the match score and a compatibility between the first particular date and the second particular date, introduction data (Madhogarhia, [0060]), “If a user does not have any favorites listed in their list of favorites, the instant play date finder 613 also automatically matches a user to potential play dates, in order to schedule a play date”; (Madhogarhia, [0062]), “when the favorites finder identifies particular children as possible matches, it displays another page suggesting potential favorites as well as the percent of parameters entered that match to the suggested potential favorite. The user then chooses which suggested potential favorites to add to their favorite list; (Madhogarhia, [0083]; [0088]); and
communicating, based on the introduction data, a personalized between the first user profile and the second profile (Madhogarhia, Fig. 17, [0075]), “a play date invitation e-mail… The body 905 has personalized information 1701 which quickly identifies the purpose of the email and expresses the invitation”; (Madhogarhia, [0062]), “… when the favorites finder identifies particular children as possible matches, it displays another page suggesting potential favorites as well as the percent of parameters entered that match to the suggested potential favorite”.
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the user profiles in Savjani to include the date, match score and introduction data limitations as taught by Madhogarhia. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the method of automatically performing matching analytics and providing the users with an indication of the quality of the match in Savjani (see par. 0020) to efficiently include the results of quickly locating potential play dates (see Madhogarhia par. 0045).
Referring to Claim 2, Savjani in view of Madhogarhia teaches the method of claim 1. Savjani further teaches:
wherein the determining the match score, comprises:
assigning, based on the first value and the second value, the first user profile to a first category (Savjani, [0068]), “The pending connections 496 lists users that are currently online and that match with one or more of the user's profiles. The pending connections 496 also lists which profile was matched and the match score for the match”; (Savjani, [0062]), “In addition to calculating a match score on a per profile basis, in another embodiment, matching can occur across multiple profiles. For example, if two users had both a sports profile 467 and a dating profile 468, the match analytics would not only perform a match score for each profile, but also an overall match score across all the profiles the two users had in common 469”.
Referring to Claim 7, Savjani in view of Madhogarhia teaches the method of claim 2. Savjani further teaches:
wherein the first category is a type of relationship (Savjani, [0054]), “A user will be provided with a list of existing profiles broken into categories (sports, college, personal, business, dating, hobbies, etc.)”.
Referring to Claim 8, Savjani in view of Madhogarhia teaches the method of claim 7. Savjani further teaches:
wherein the type of relationship is a platonic friendship (Savjani, [0054]), “A user will be provided with a list of existing profiles broken into categories (sports, college, personal… hobbies, etc.)”.
Referring to Claim 9, Savjani in view of Madhogarhia teaches the method of claim 7. Savjani teaches profiles broken into categories (sports, college, personal, business, dating, hobbies, etc.) (see par. 0054), but Savjani does not explicitly teach:
wherein the type of relationship is a child play date.
However Madhogarhia teaches:
wherein the type of relationship is a child play date (Madhogarhia, [0050]), “a user completes information requested in one or more network pages. The information requested can include various parameters about the child and/or the parent in order to more effectively match children with each other for play date scheduling”; (Madhogarhia, [0054]; [0056]; [0088]).
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the profile categories in Savjani to include the play date limitation as taught by Madhogarhia. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the method of automatically performing matching analytics and providing the users with an indication of the quality of the match in Savjani (see par. 0020) to efficiently include the results of quickly and efficiently scheduling a play date (see Madhogarhia par. 0045).
Referring to Claim 10, Savjani in view of Madhogarhia teaches the method of claim 7. Savjani further teaches:
wherein the type of relationship is a vendor (Savjani, [0054]), “A user will be provided with a list of existing profiles broken into categories (… business… etc.)”.
Referring to Claim 11, Savjani teaches:
a computer system for facilitating introductions between two user profiles, the method comprising:
at least one processor circuit having: a profile generating module, a match type comparison module and a match score generating module (Savjani, [0047]-[0049]), “The central processor operating pursuant to operating system software… Software programs or modules instruct the operating systems to perform tasks… The provided functionality may be embodied directly in hardware, in a software module executed by a processor or in any combination of the two…”; (Savjani, [0038]; [0042])
configured to:
Claim 11 disclose substantially the same subject matter as Claim 1, and is rejected using the same rationale as previously set forth.
Claim 12 disclose substantially the same subject matter as Claim 2, and is rejected using the same rationale as previously set forth.
Claim 16 disclose substantially the same subject matter as Claim 7, and is rejected using the same rationale as previously set forth.
Referring to Claim 17, Savjani teaches:
a computer program product for facilitating introductions between two user profiles, the computer program product comprising a computer read-able storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, wherein the computer readable storage medium is not a transitory signal per se, the program instructions executable by a computer processing circuit to cause the circuit (Savjani, [0041]), “Computing system 200 may also include other removable/non-removable, volatile/nonvolatile computer storage media. By way of example only, a hard disk drive 224 that reads from or writes to non-removable, nonvolatile magnetic media, a magnetic disk drive 226 that reads from or writes to a removable, nonvolatile magnetic disk 228, and an optical disk drive 230 that reads from or writes to a removable, nonvolatile optical disk 232 such as a CD ROM or other optical media could be employed to store the invention of the present embodiment”; (Savjani, [0042]; [0038]-[0039]) to perform the method comprising:
Claim 17 disclose substantially the same subject matter as Claim 1, and is rejected using the same rationale as previously set forth.
Claim 18 disclose substantially the same subject matter as Claim 2, and is rejected using the same rationale as previously set forth.
Claim 4, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savjani et al., U.S. Publication No. 2009/0271212 [hereinafter Savjani], in view of Madhogarhia, U.S. Publication No. 2007/0239507 [hereinafter Madhogarhia], and further in view of Hurley, U.S. Publication No. 2018/0130139 [hereinafter Hurley].
Referring to Claim 4, Savjani in view of Madhogarhia teaches the method of claim 1. Savjani teaches introduction information may be provided to each user upon creating a permanent connection. This introduction information would normally include introductory text entered by the particular user, but could also include files such as pictures, documents, audio files, etc. (see par. 0067), but Savjani does not explicitly teach:
further comprising, prior to the identifying the first value,
displaying, on the first user device associated with the first user profile, a video of the second user; and
receiving, from the first user device, the first value from the first user profile.
However Hurley teaches:
further comprising, prior to the identifying the first value, displaying, on the first user device associated with the first user profile, a video of the second user (Hurley, Fig. 3, [0040]-[0041]), “Interface element 346 may allow a Search User to see or be presented with additional information, e.g., pictures, videos… about the person associated with profile”; and
receiving, from the first user device, the first value from the first user profile (Hurley, [0041]-[0042]), “a Search User may match from interface 300 by swiping up, or swiping left, or swiping right, or double tapping, or using one of many well-known interface interactions… In another embodiment, a Search User may match from interface 200 by swiping right on a profile, or by using one of many well-known interface interactions”.
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the introduction information in Savjani to include the video limitations as taught by Hurley. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the method of automatically performing matching analytics and providing the users with an indication of the quality of the match in Savjani (see par. 0020) to efficiently include the results of reviewing profiles, and for each profile determine whether to generate, or suggest generating, a match (see Hurley par. 0006).
Claim 14 disclose substantially the same subject matter as Claim 4, and is rejected using the same rationale as previously set forth.
Claim 20 disclose substantially the same subject matter as Claim 4, and is rejected using the same rationale as previously set forth.
Claims 5, 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savjani et al., U.S. Publication No. 2009/0271212 [hereinafter Savjani], in view of Madhogarhia, U.S. Publication No. 2007/0239507 [hereinafter Madhogarhia], and further in view of Mintz, U.S. Publication No. 2020/0125647 [hereinafter Mintz].
Referring to Claim 5, Savjani in view of Madhogarhia teaches the method of claim 1. Savjani teaches introduction information may be provided to each user upon creating a permanent connection. This introduction information would normally include introductory text entered by the particular user, but could also include files such as pictures, documents, audio files, etc. (see par. 0067), but Savjani does not explicitly teach:
further comprising:
receiving, from a first user, a set of one or more videos;
associating, with the first user profile, the set of one or more videos;
causing, in response to the associating, a display of the set of one or more videos onto a second device associated with the second user.
However Mintz teaches:
further comprising:
receiving, from a first user, a set of one or more videos (Mintz, [0017]), “The collections of the short video segments are used to build the candidate's profile and to find suitable matches for the user personally and professionally”; (Mintz, [0041]), “The video journal service program 67 receives video recordings of the registered user and stores the video recordings associated with the user's profile in a repository”; (Mintz, [0018])
associating, with the first user profile, the set of one or more videos (Mintz, [0025]), “Repository 53 may contain user profiles, stored video recordings received from registered users, and video journals comprising clips from the stored video recordings”; (Mintz, [0041]), “The video journal service program 67 receives video recordings of the registered user and stores the video recordings associated with the user's profile in a repository”;
causing, in response to the associating, a display of the set of one or more videos onto a second device associated with the second user (Mintz, [0053]), “when a match does occur, a video journal of the matched user can be sent to the user to review. The video journal can be the first video journal, the second video journal or a video journal including all of the recordings the user has recorded”; (Mintz, [0058]).
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the introduction information in Savjani to include the video limitations as taught by Mintz. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the method of automatically performing matching analytics and providing the users with an indication of the quality of the match in Savjani (see par. 0020) to efficiently include the results of matching users through captured media (see Mintz par. 0007).
Referring to Claim 6, Savjani in view of Madhogarhia teaches the method of claim 1. Savjani teaches introduction information may be provided to each user upon creating a permanent connection. This introduction information would normally include introductory text entered by the particular user, but could also include files such as pictures, documents, audio files, etc. (see par. 0067), but Savjani does not explicitly teach:
wherein the first user profile comprises a plurality of videos, wherein the videos are under 10 seconds
However Mintz teaches:
wherein the first user profile comprises a plurality of videos, wherein the videos are under 10 seconds (Mintz, [0041]), “The video journal service program 67 receives video recordings of the registered user and stores the video recordings associated with the user's profile in a repository”; (Mintz, [0034]), “the recorded videos are between 15 seconds and 5 minutes long, although longer video clips may also be used. In particular, in some embodiments, the videos recorded are 15-20 seconds long”; (Mintz, [0025]). Examiner notes, Applicants can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness by showing the criticality of the range. "The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims. . . . In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range." In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Scherl, 156 F.2d 72, 74-75, 70 USPQ 204, 205 (CCPA 1946) ("Where the issue of criticality is involved, the applicant has the burden of establishing his position by a proper showing of the facts upon which he relies."); In re Wells, 56 F.2d 674, 675 (CCPA 1932) ("Changes in proportions of agents used in combinations . . . in order to be patentable, must be critical as compared with the proportions of the prior processes."); see MPEP 2144.05(III)(A).
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the introduction information in Savjani to include the video limitations as taught by Mintz. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the method of automatically performing matching analytics and providing the users with an indication of the quality of the match in Savjani (see par. 0020) to efficiently include the results of matching users through captured media (see Mintz par. 0007).
Claim 15 disclose substantially the same subject matter as Claim 5, and is rejected using the same rationale as previously set forth.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Thomas (US 20230289895 A1) – FIG. 10 an "Introduce 'Em" screen useful for a member to refer other members to their friends. Preferably, the "Introduce 'Em" screen is a pop-up screen which can be invoked anywhere from within the system. Once the "Introduce 'Em" screen is invoked, the member selects a first set of contacts to refer to a second set of contacts, then includes a message in message box 1030. After submitting the message by clicking on send button, the second set of contacts receive the message. Preferably, the first set of contacts can also receive a copy of the message and the list of contacts in the second set of contacts. The above described screen is very useful not just for dating purposes but also for business referrals.
Nordstrom et al. (US 20180317062 A1) - The systems and methods in accordance with embodiments include an automatic introduction tool providing geospatially active features that facilitate users to meet each other. Other applications can include but not be limited to general social interactions, for example, where two individuals are in the same vicinity and may be interested in being made aware of each other's availability in order to initiate a personal encounter such as a meeting.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Crystol Stewart whose telephone number is (571)272-1691. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am-5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Patty Munson can be reached on (571)270-5396. 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.
/CRYSTOL STEWART/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624