DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Objections
Claims 10, 13, and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities: These claims should all depend from claim 9. Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-8, 12, and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 9064274. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown below:
Instant Application 18163160
US Pat. 9064274
1. A method of making personality-related recommendations to an entity, the method being performed by a computer system comprising at least one computer processor, the method comprising:
receiving indications of personality attributes of an entity;
acquiring indications of personality attributes of a desired partner of the entity;
applying a mathematical model to the personality attributes of the entity and the personality attributes of the desired partner of the entity, the mathematical model calculating one or more recommended changes to the personality attributes of the entity to increase a predicted relationship satisfaction score between the entity and the desired partner, the mathematical model configured to use a summation operation of a relationship function for each of a discrete number of specific attribute pairs for the entity and the desired partner of the entity, wherein the relationship function for at least one attribute pair reflects an antagonistic relationship such that the predicted relationship satisfaction score increases with greater dissimilarity in paired attribute scores;
selecting a recommended action from a database of recommended actions, based at least in part on the recommended changes to the personality attributes of the entity resulting from the antagonistic relationship for the at least one attribute pair; and transmitting an indication of the recommended action.
2. The method of Claim 1, wherein the summation operation comprises a term in the form of equation (1): [EQUATION HERE] and wherein n represents a discrete number of personality attributes, iy represents the personality attribute y of the entity, and pz represents the personality attribute z for the desired partner, and eyz represents the relationship function than can reflect the antagonistic relationship between in and pn.
1. A method of making personality-related recommendations to an entity, the method being performed by a computer system comprising at least one computer processor, the method comprising:
receiving indications of personality attributes of an entity;
acquiring indications of personality attributes of a desired partner of the entity;
applying a mathematical model to the personality attributes of the entity and the personality attributes of the desired partner of the entity, the mathematical model calculating one or more recommended changes to the personality attributes of the entity to increase a predicted relationship satisfaction score between the entity and the desired partner, and the mathematical model comprising at least one numerical operation on at least one of the personality attributes of the entity, at least one of the personality attributes of the desired partner, and at least one statistical interaction term that reflects a synergistic and/or antagonistic relationship between the at least one of the personality attributes of the entity and the at least one of the personality attributes of the desired partner, wherein the at least one numerical operation comprises at least one summation operation and the at least one summation operation comprises a summation operation in the form of equation (1) [EQUATION HERE]
and n represents a discrete number of personality attributes, iy represents the personality attribute y of n for the entity, pz represents the personality attribute z of n for the desired partner, and eyz represents the statistical interaction term that reflects a synergistic and/or antagonistic relationship between the personality attribute y of n for the entity and the personality attribute z of n for the desired partner;
selecting a recommended action from a database of recommended actions, based at least in part on the recommended changes to the personality attributes of the entity; and
transmitting an indication of the recommended action.
1. ...the at least one summation operation comprises a summation operation in the form of equation (1): [EQUATION HERE] and n represents a discrete number of personality attributes, iy represents the personality attribute y of n for the entity, pz represents the personality attribute z of n for the desired partner, and eyz represents the statistical interaction term that reflects a synergistic and/or antagonistic relationship between the personality attribute y of n for the entity and the personality attribute z of n for the desired partner...
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an entity module configured to allow...,” “a calculation output module configured to display...,” and “a match output module configured to display...” in claim 9; “a recommendation display module configured to display...” in claim 10; and “a want module and a corresponding interface element configured to accept...” in claim 14.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. See figure 1 and association paragraphs.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 9, 14, and 15 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Busch (US Pub. 20100017219) in view of Zilca (US Pub. 20070192106).
Referring to claim 9, Busch discloses An interface for interacting with a relationship modeling computer system, the interface comprising:
an entity input module configured to allow a user entity to assess the entity's own attributes [fig. 1; pars. 44 and 45; each party (e.g., P1 and P2) inputs parameters and saves them to their user profile (e.g., P2)] and comprising at least three interactive interface controls for selecting at least three levels [fig. 1; pars. 24, 27, 30, 44, and 45; the input parameters include about desired character criteria (e.g., age, personality, gender, degree, experience, and other qualities), which comprises drag bars 32, 34, and 36, which are interactive interface controls, each indicating at least 3 levels (e.g., beginning, middle, end) and 4 selectable icons 26 for indicating relative importance of the desired character criteria, which are also interactive interface controls indicating at least 3 levels (e.g., none, least significant, significant, more significant, most significant)], the controls corresponding to at least three specific entity attributes from the following:
...extroversion level of the entity... [par. 27; note reference to Myers-Briggs personality types, which includes extroversion]; and
a calculation output module configured to display results resulting from a calculation module that uses input from entity input modules of others to determine a match using a maximization algorithm comprising a summation operation using an attribute pair relationship series [pars. 44-46 and 57; a compatibility score is calculated between a searching party (e.g., P1) and a party being matched (e.g., P2) by comparing each of the input parameters and adding points from each input parameter to a Current Score; the final Current Score is the compatibility score; matching parties (e.g., P2) with the highest compatibility scores (i.e., “best match”) are listed in order to P1]; and
a match output module configured to display to the user entity at least one other entity as a match [par. 57; note the listing of the matching parties (e.g., P2) to P1].
Busch does not appear to explicitly disclose at least three specific entity attributes from the following: openness level of the entity; conscientiousness level of the entity; neuroticism level of the entity; extroversion level of the entity; and agreeableness level of the entity.
However, Zilca discloses at least three specific entity attributes from the following: openness level of the entity; conscientiousness level of the entity; neuroticism level of the entity; extroversion level of the entity; and agreeableness level of the entity [par. 40; a personality model may include a Big Five model (i.e., include parameters such as Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the matching taught by Busch so that the input parameters include character criteria such as Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism as taught by Zilca, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to reflect the personality of users in a meaningful way [Zilca, par. 8].
Referring to claim 14, Busch discloses The interface of Claim 9, further comprising a want module and a corresponding interface element configured to accept and allow a user entity to adjust wanted attribute levels of a potential match [pars. 27 and 30; note the desired character criteria].
Referring to claim 15, Busch and Zilca discloses The interface of Claim 14, wherein the want module and corresponding interface element comprise at least three interface controls for two or more of the following attributes for the potential match: openness level; conscientiousness level; neuroticism level; extroversion level; and agreeableness level [Busch: pars. 27 and 30, note the desired character criteria; Zilca: par. 40, note the Big Five model].
Claims 10, 11, 13, and 16 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Busch and Zilca in view of Thompson (US Pub. 20040210661).
Referring to claim 10, Busch and Zilca do not appear to explicitly disclose However, Thompson discloses The interface of Claim 9, further comprising a recommendation display module configured to display results from a recommendation module, the results recommending actions by the user entity to improve an outcome with one or more matching entities.
However, Thompson discloses The interface of Claim 9, further comprising a recommendation display module configured to display results from a recommendation module, the results recommending actions by the user entity to improve an outcome with one or more matching entities [par. 64; once two users have been matched and decide to learn more about each other or communicate with each other, a connectivity module provides the users with a suite of options that allows the users to communicate and share information with each other (i.e., improve their relationship)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the matching taught by the combination of Busch and Zilca so that the matched parties are provided with options to improve their relationship as taught by Thompson, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to assist the users in forming and maintaining new connections with their matches [Thompson, par. 2].
Referring to claim 11, Thompson discloses The interface of Claim 10, wherein the recommendation module provides recommended dates with the at least one displayed match [par. 64; many of the options are intended to give the users an “on-line date” experience].
Referring to claim 13, Busch and Zilca do not appear to explicitly disclose The interface of Claim 9, wherein the maximization algorithm uses at least one antagonistic relationship between pairs of attributes for the user entity and potential matches.
However, Thompson discloses The interface of Claim 9, wherein the maximization algorithm uses at least one antagonistic relationship between pairs of attributes for the user entity and potential matches [par. 136; user traits may include deal breaker traits that are either required in a potential match or cannot be present in a potential match].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the matching taught by the combination of Busch and Zilca so that the character criteria include deal breaker traits as taught by Thompson, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to assist the users in forming and maintaining new connections with their matches [Thompson, par. 2].
Referring to claim 16, Thompson discloses The interface of Claim 10, wherein the recommendation module is further configured to recommend adjustments in entity attributes to increase a number of potential matches [pars. 178 and 179; where only a small number of matches are identified, users are informed of various options for relaxing search criteria to generate additional matches].
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRACE PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-7727. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM.
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, TAMARA KYLE can be reached at (571)272-4241. 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.
/Grace Park/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2144