DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This is a nonfinal rejection in response to amendments/remarks filed on 01/21/2026. Claims 1-5 and 12-16 are presently amended. Claims 1-20 remain pending and are examined herein.
Priority
The earliest effective filing date is the filing date of the present application 02/23/2023. There are no prior priority claims.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/21/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains new subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 recites the limitation, “enforcing the mood-specific interaction workflow by blocking, via a routing module of the social networking platform, transmission of content associated with content types outside of the set of permitted content types defined by the mood-specific interaction workflow;” However, the specification, particular referring to [0033], lacks the means to perform the “enforcing” step, and does not recite any structural components or capabilities of “blocking, via a routing module, transmission of content associated with content types.” As a matter of fact, no blocking nor transmission is discussed in the original disclosure. This limitation is also representative of claim 12, which also lacks support in the written description. Claims 2-11, and 13-20 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 12.
The examiner notes that even when considering the MPEP 2163.07(a) inherency consideration, the claims still lack support because it is not inherent for generic computing devices to be able to enforce the specific workflows by blocking transmission of certain content types. MPEP 2163.07(a) states, "To establish inherency, the extrinsic evidence ‘must make clear that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing described in the reference, and that it would be so recognized by persons of ordinary skill. Inherency, however, may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.’ Furthermore, the Applicant has not pointed out where the new (or amended) claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitation above in the application as filed." Finally, the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm and sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention. There is no specific algorithm or series of steps that would lend the computer the ability to perform the blocking of transmission of particular content types, because the specification only recites the idea of “a user may not be able to send sexual imagery to another user if the two users were connected because they both chose a platonic mood” in [0033], without any means of enforcing it.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected under 112(a) for reciting new matter that does not comply with the written description requirement. For compact prosecution purposes, the claims will still be analyzed, but will be interpreted to encompass any teachings of blocking the transmission of certain content types, including merely rules against certain content types or the inability to send photos.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Is the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture, or Composition of Matter?
The independent claims 1 and 12 recite A method performed on a social networking platform(Claims 1-11) and A system for a social networking platform(Claim 12-20). Both fall under at least “process, machine, or manufacture” which are potentially eligible subject matter category to be further analyzed under Step 2.
Step 2a Prong 1: Is the claim reciting a Judicial Exception(A Law of Nature, a Natural Phenomenon (Product of Nature), or An Abstract Idea?)
The claims under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification are analyzed herein. Representative claims 1, and 12 are marked up, isolating the abstract idea from additional elements, wherein the abstract idea is in bold and the additional elements have been italicized as follows:
Claim 1: A method performed on a social networking platform, comprising:
receiving, from a first client computing device associated with a first account, a user-selected mood indication, wherein the mood indication corresponds to a social intent mood category selected from a plurality of predefined social intent mood categories stored in a mood category data structure, wherein the plurality of predefined social intent mood categories includes at least one non-romantic social activity mood category representing a type of non-romantic social interaction the user is seeking;
applying, by a computer processor, at least two sets of grouping criteria to a set of accounts of the social networking platform to generate an eligible group, wherein:
the eligible group is a subset of the set of accounts, and
applying the at least two sets of grouping criteria comprises:
including only accounts with an associated mood qualifying as compatible with the mood indication based on predefined compatibility rules that associate social intent mood categories representing similar types of social interactions as compatible, and
including only accounts associated with client computing devices within a geographic distance of the first client computing device;
providing, to the first client computing device, the eligible group for display;
receiving, from the first client computing device, an identification of a selected account in the eligible group and a first offer;
determining, based on the social intent mood category, a mood-specific interaction workflow by accessing a workflow data structure indexed by the social intent mood category, wherein the mood-specific interaction workflow defines a set of permitted content types and a set of permitted offer types for the social intent mood category;
enforcing the mood-specific interaction workflow by blocking, via a routing module of the social networking platform, transmission of content associated with content types outside the set of permitted content types defined by the mood-specific interaction workflow;
providing, to a second client computing device associated with the selected account, the first offer, wherein the first offer is of a permitted offer type from the set of permitted offer types defined by the mood-specific interaction workflow;
receiving, from the second client computing device, a first response to the first offer; and
providing, to the first client computing device, a notification indicating the first response.
Claim 12: A system for a social networking platform, comprising:
a computer processor;
a memory storing:
a mood category data structure comprising a plurality of predefined social intent mood categories, and
a workflow data structure indexed by social intent mood category and defining, for each social intent mood category, a set of permitted content types and a set of permitted offer types;
a routing module; and
a connecting engine executing on the computer processor and configured to:
receive, from a first client computing device associated with a first account, a user-selected mood indication, wherein the mood indication corresponds to a social intent mood category selected from the plurality of predefined social intent mood categories stored in the mood category data structure, wherein the plurality of predefined social intent mood categories includes at least one non-romantic social activity mood category representing a type of non-romantic social interaction the user is seeking;
apply, by the computer processor, at least two sets of grouping criteria to a set of accounts of the social networking platform to generate an eligible group, wherein:
the eligible group is a subset of accounts, and
the application by the computer processor of the at least two sets of grouping criteria to generate the eligible group, wherein the grouping criteria include:
an associated mood qualifying as compatible with the mood indication based on predefined compatibility rules that associate social intent mood categories representing similar types of social interactions as compatible, and
accounts associated with client computing devices within a geographic distance of the first client computing device
determine, based on the social intent mood category, a mood-specific interaction workflow by accessing the workflow data structure, wherein the mood-specific interaction workflow defines the set of permitted content types and the set of permitted offer types for the social intent mood category;
enforce the mood-specific interaction workflow by blocking, via the routing module, transmission of content associated with content types outside the set of permitted content types defined by the mood-specific interaction workflow;
provide, to a second client computing device associated with the selected account, the first offer, wherein the first offer is of a permitted offer type from the set of permitted offer types defined by the mood-specific interaction workflow;
receive, from the second client computing device, a first response to the first offer; and
provide, to the first client computing device, a notification indicating the first response.
When given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, the bolded limitations are reciting activities which fall within “certain methods of human activity” which are considered an abstract idea. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) describes the abstract idea grouping of “certain methods of organizing human activity” to describe concepts relating to “fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations); and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).” The specific limitations above in bold fall within the sub-grouping “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people.” More specifically, each and every limitation in bold given their broadest reasonable interpretations in view of the specification, are social activities, teachings or following rules or instructions in order to facilitate interactions between individuals. As a non-limiting example, the amended limitation, “receive, from a first client associated with a first account, a user-selected mood indication, wherein the mood indication corresponds to a social intent mood category selected from the plurality of predefined social intent mood categories stored in the mood category data structure, wherein the plurality of predefined social intent mood categories includes at least one non-romantic social activity mood category representing a type of non-romantic social interaction the user is seeking;” falls within managing interactions between individuals because it merely receives a user selection of mood indications, which represents the type of non-romantic social interaction the user is seeking. The fact that the social intent mood category is selected from a mood category data structure, is still recited at a high-level of generality that it encompasses instructions to an individual to manage personal behavior. Furthermore, the remaining limitations of the claim also can be categorized as “social activities,” especially the amended limitation, “an associated mood qualifying as compatible with the mood indication based on predefined compatibility rules that associate social intent mood categories representing similar types of social interactions as compatible” which is a set of “predefined compatibility rules” which fall within “rules or instruction” to manage interactions. Even the wording of “determine a mood specific workflow by accessing the workflow data structure” is still no more than a set of instructions to an individual because a “data structure” is broad enough to include any organization of information, and is not a specific implementation of a data structure.
Furthermore, the amended limitation, “enforce the mood-specific interaction workflow by blocking... transmission of content associated with content types outside the set of permitted content types defined by the mood-specific interaction workflow;” is still part of the abstract idea because it merely claims the idea of “blocking transmission” such that it encompasses mere rules or instructions to an individual to block the content, instead of a method unique to technology. When viewing the specification [0033] it is clear that there is no specific means for blocking transmission, therefore even “rules for blocking transmission” would fall within the scope. Finally, “provide, to a second client associated with the selected account, the first offer, wherein the first offer is of a permitted offer type from the set of permitted offer types defined by the mood-specific interaction workflow;” is merely displaying the results of the analysis, which is still part of the abstract idea since it is no more than a display to a user.
Therefore, the claims recite at least one abstract idea sub-category, even when considering that some of the activity is carried out between a person and a computer. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) states, “the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. It is noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings.” The present specification is further evidence that the overall alleged invention at least recites “certain methods of organizing human activity.” Paragraph [0033] states, “[0033]In some embodiments, the mood indication may determine the "workflow" or subsequent steps made available to the user. For example, what types of predetermined offers and/or counteroffers are presented to a user, what type of subject matter can be sent to another user (e.g., a user may not be able to send sexual imagery to another user if the two users were connected because they both chose a platonic mood), an amount of time a user has to respond (to an offer, counteroffer, and/or message), what types of counteroffers may be sent, how many messages may be sent, etc.” Therefore, even the enumerated examples of “workflows” provided in the specification fall within the abstract idea.
Therefore, representative claims 1, and 12 at least recite an abstract idea and are to be further analyzed under Prong 2.
Step 2A Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
Claims 1 and 12 recite the following additional elements:
- client computing device(s) in claims 1, 12
- by a computer processor in claims 1, 12
- a memory; and in claim 12
-routing module in claims 1, 12
- a connecting engine executing on the computer processor in claim 12
The additional elements listed above, when considered individually and in combination with the claim as a whole, no more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on generic computing components as outlined in MPEP 2106.05(f). In this case, the abstract idea steps of “matchmaking” are instructed to be performed on generic computing devices such as client computing devices, computer processors, memory, connecting engine, and routing module. It is clear in at least paragraphs [0074 – 0089] that the computing components above can be any generic computer capable of performing the functional limitations. Including the “routing module” in claim 12, which is merely a module stored within the “memory” which is merely reciting a black box module that is no more than an device in its ordinary capacity to carry out an economic task (using a routing module to block transmission). Therefore, the claims do not recite a specific improved computing infrastructure, which is a consideration under MPEP 2106.05(a).
Any alleged improvement is merely an improvement to performing the abstract idea, which was inherently brought upon by the use of generic machine learning to perform functions within its ordinary capacity. Furthermore, performing these functions generally on any generic computing device, does not provide an integration into a practical application. Therefore, whether considered individually or as an ordered combination the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Claims 1 and 12 recite the following additional elements:
- client computing device(s) in claims 1, 12
- by a computer processor in claims 1, 12
- a memory; and in claim 12
- routing module in claims 1, 12
- a connecting engine executing on the computer processor in claim 12
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using generic computing components to perform the steps associated with matchmaking, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus claims 1 and 12 are not patent eligible because the claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding dependent claims 2-11 and 13-20:
Dependent claims 2-11 and 13-20 are also given the full two-part eligibility analysis individually and in combination with the claims they depend on as follows:
-Claims 2-4 and 13-15 adds the following additional steps:
-the mood indication includes only one social intent mood category, and wherein an associated mood qualifying as compatible with the mood indication includes only the one social intent mood category corresponding to the mood indication(Claims 2, 13)
-wherein social intent mood categories qualifying as compatible with the mood indication include the social intent mood category corresponding to the mood indication and at least one other social intent mood category.(Claims 3, 14)
-the mood indication includes a first social intent mood category and a second social intent mood category; and
the applying the at least two sets of grouping criteria further comprises including only accounts with associated moods qualifying as compatible with both the first social intent mood category and the second social intent mood category.(Claims 4, 15)
These additional steps are directed to the abstract idea of “matchmaking.” This is another example of “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” because social intent mood category are inherently human behaviors, and relating compatible moods is managing interactions between people. In combination with the representative claims, the abstract idea still falls under: “certain methods of organizing human activity” because the dependent claims only add instructions which further limit how to organize compatible moods. Additionally, there are no further additional elements to be considered, therefore the claims have not integrated the abstract idea into a practical application or are significantly more in order to consider it an inventive concept.
-Claims 5-6, and 16 add the following additional steps:
- providing a set of offer choices to the first client computing device, wherein the set of offer choices are of permitted offer types based on the mood-specific interaction workflow; and wherein the first offer indicates at least one offer from the set of offer choices.
- wherein the first offer indicates at least one custom offer received from the first client computing device.
These additional steps are directed to the abstract idea of “offering options or suggestions to a user, including the option to customize the offer.” This is another example of “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” because it simply instructs the user to select a variety of options, and teachings or instructions are certain methods of organizing human activity which are abstract ideas. In combination with the representative claims, the abstract idea now recites “receiving a mood of a user, searching for nearby users with compatible moods, receiving an offer from one of the users based on a plurality of choices, and relaying a response to the offer.” The additional element “first client computing device” is repeated, but it is still merely an example of reciting components being used as a tool to execute the abstract idea, recited at such a high-level of generality (i.e., a generic processor performing a generic computer function of communicating data between users) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computing component. Therefore, the claims have not integrated the abstract idea into a practical application or are significantly more in order to consider it an inventive concept.
Claims 7-10 and 17-20 add additional steps which comprise of accepting or declining an offer or counteroffer, and allowing or preventing communication, respectively. These additional steps are another example of “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” because it recites steps of social behavior, for example, accepting an offer in real life to go on a date and then communicating with them. Or alternatively, rejecting a real life date offer, and not allowing them to talk to you. These are personal behaviors or relationships between people at its core. Furthermore in combination with the claims they depend on, the abstract idea is now “receiving a mood of a user, searching for nearby users with compatible moods, receiving an offer from one of the users, relaying a response to the offer, and allowing or preventing communication based on the response.” This is still certain methods of organizing human activity that are abstract ideas. The additional element “first client computing device” is repeated, but it is still merely an example of reciting components being used as a tool to execute the abstract idea, recited at such a high-level of generality (i.e., a generic processor performing a generic computer function of communicating data between users) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computing component. Therefore, the claims have not integrated the abstract idea into a practical application or are significantly more in order to consider it an inventive concept.
Claim 11 does not recite an additional step, instead it merely includes an example of an offer, in this case a game. Categorizing the offer as a game still recites the abstract idea, “receiving a mood of a user, searching for nearby users with compatible moods, receiving a game invitation from one of the users, and relaying a response to the offer.” When considering that this game does not necessarily need to recite a video game, it does not count as an additional element, therefore the claims have not integrated the abstract idea into a practical application or are significantly more in order to consider it an inventive concept.
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 1-8 and 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheremkhin et al(US 11386172 B1) hereinafter Cheremkhin,
in view of Kahan et al.(US 20150058235 A1) hereinafter Kahan,
further in view of John Devecka (US 20120290978 A1) hereinafter Devecka.
Regarding Claim 1 (as a representative claim also applicable to Claim 12):
Cheremkhin discloses a social media dating application, with features such as an enabling a user to indicate their mood. Cheremkhin teaches:
Claim 1 Preamble: A method performed on a social networking platform, (Cheremkhin(Col. 1, Lines 7-12) This invention relates generally to social media dating applications deployed in computer networks. More particularly, this invention is directed toward techniques for matching individuals based upon a commitment disposition criterion.)
Claim 12 Preamble: A system for a social networking platform, comprising: a computer processor; a memory storing: a mood category data structure comprising a plurality of predefined social intent mood categories, and (see Cheremkhin [Col. 2 Lines 34-40]), a routing module,(see Cheremkhin matching module); and a connecting engine executing on the computer processor and configured to:(Cheremkhin [Col. 1 Line 65 – Col. 2 Line 6] Each client device 102 includes a processor (e.g., central processing unit) 110 in communication with input/output devices 112 via a bus 114. The input/output devices 112 may include a keyboard, mouse, touch display and the like. A network interface circuit 116 is also connected to the bus 114 to provide connectivity to network 106. A memory 120 is also connected to the bus 114. The memory 120 stores instructions executed by the processor 110.)
Steps from Claim 1 Body (representative of Claim 12 body steps):
-receiving, from a first client computing device associated with a first account, a user-selected mood indication, (Cheremkhin(Col 2. Lines 11-15) Typically, each client device 102_1 through 102_N is a mobile device executing the dating application 122. Different client devices 102_1 through 102_N are operated by different individuals that subscribe to the same dating application 122...(Col 3. Fig 34-41) The commitment disposition criterion discussed in connection with FIG. 3 may be referred to as a “mood scale”. The feature 306 can be moved on scale 304 between different ‘moods’. Moving the indicator button 306 on scale 304 serves two purposes for the user. First, it creates a new personal ‘mood’ attribute that is associated with that user’s profile along with the other provided personal information.
- wherein the mood indication corresponds to a social intent mood category selected from a plurality of predefined social intent mood categories stored in a mood category data structure; (Cheremkhin [Col. 2 Lines 34-40] At least one criterion, say criterion_1, 302_1 specifies a commitment disposition. A slider bar 304 with a feature 306 may be used to specify the commitment disposition between a high level (e.g., “Mr. Right”) and a low level (e.g., “Mr. Right Now”). A gesture (e.g., a swiping motion) is applied to the user interface 300 to specify matching criteria.) Categories in Cheremkhin’s commitment disposition criterion include “Mr. Right, Mr. Right Now” as seen in Col. 2. These fall within the broadest reasonable interpretation of “social intent mood category selected from a plurality of predefined social intent mood categories stored in a mood category data structure.” The BRI of the limitation above broadly encapsulates the cited portion of Cheremkhin because the present specification fails to specifically define “social intent mood category” or the “mood category data structure.” Therefore, any storage of the categories would satisfy the “data structure,” because simply listing the categories falls within the scope of “mood category data structure.” Furthermore, because “Mr. Right,” “Mr. Right Now” are defined by the system, they satisfy “predefined.”
-applying, by a computer processor, at least two sets of grouping criteria to a set of accounts of the social networking platform to generate an eligible group, (Cheremkhin(Col 2 Lines 23-44) Turning to FIG. 2, the matching module 142 initially supplies prompts for matching criteria 200. That is, the matching module 142 supplies to a client device operated by a first individual a user interface with prompts that are used to collect matching criteria for a potential introduction to a second individual. The matching criteria includes criterion to specify commitment disposition...FIG. 3 illustrates a user interface 300 that may be supplied from the matching module 142 to a client device 102 in accordance with an embodiment of the invention. The user interface 300 includes individual prompts 302_1 through 302_N for different matching criteria. At least one criterion, say criterion_1, 302_1 specifies a commitment disposition. A slider bar 304 with a feature 306 may be used to specify the commitment disposition between a high level (e.g., “Mr. Right”) and a low level (e.g., “Mr. Right Now”). A gesture (e.g., a swiping motion) is applied to the user interface 300 to specify matching criteria. In embodiments, the gesture is applied to a slider bar with a feature, as shown in FIG. 3. Interface 300 also shows additional criterion 302_2 through 302_N, which may include a search radius (e.g., individuals with 10 miles) and an age range. (Col 3 Lines 63-64) A user receives profiles of other users who have met the filtering criteria; the user is able to explore the personal information that has been added to a profile.) Cheremkin’s matching criteria will be interpreted to be synonymous with grouping criteria as stated in the present disclosure. The eligible group of the present disclosure is taught in Col 3 Lines 63-64 of Cheremkin. The “at least two sets of grouping criteria” can be found in Cheremkhin Fig. 3, which shows 2 or more sets of criterion(302_1, 302_2...302_N)
-wherein: the eligible group is a subset of the set of accounts, and (Cheremkhin(Col 3 Lines 30-33) In one embodiment, a user is able to filter the profiles of other users that are served to them for viewing through setting restrictions upon the age, location, or potentially any other personal attribute.) Filtering the profiles teaches the “subset of the set of accounts” because the entire database of profiles in Cheremkin would be the set of accounts, and the filtered profiles would be the subset which denotes the eligible group.
-applying the at least two sets of grouping criteria comprises: including only accounts with an associated mood qualifying as compatible with the mood indication, and (Cheremkhin (Col 3 Lines 45-62) The second purpose that moving the indicator serves is to create an additional filter upon the set of user profiles served for viewing. A user having moved an indicator to the ‘Mr Right’ point on the scale, will therefore be shown the profiles of other users who have also moved their indicators to that region of the scale. Through the use of the indicator scale users are able to indicate what their intentions are as they look for matches, and also filter the other users available to view. This feature increases the quality of the matches that are possible in a social network by the filtering of possible users based on their intentions. In one embodiment, a user who leaves the indicator in a central position (e.g., “Mr Who Knows”) can be served users from within the “Mr Who Knows” pool, but also users from the other options on the scale. Users are also able to blend multiple ‘moods’ by moving their indicator button to be in a position between identified ‘moods’ on the scale, and are served the profiles of other users from both pools.)
- including only accounts with an associated mood qualifying as compatible with the mood indication; (Cheremkhin(Col 3 Lines 30-33) In one embodiment, a user is able to filter the profiles of other users that are served to them for viewing through setting restrictions upon the age, location, or potentially any other personal attribute. [Col. 3 Lines 55-62] In one embodiment, a user who leaves the indicator in a central position (e.g., “Mr Who Knows”) can be served users from within the “Mr Who Knows” pool, but also users from the other options on the scale. Users are also able to blend multiple ‘moods’ by moving their indicator button to be in a position between identified ‘moods’ on the scale, and are served the profiles of other users from both pools.)
- based on predefined compatibility rules that associate social intent mood categories representing similar types of social interactions as compatible, and (Cheremkhin [Col. 2 Lines 51-61] Returning to FIG. 2, matching criteria is collected 202 from client devices 102_1 through 102_N at the server 104. The matching module 142 then generates matches 204 based upon matching criteria. The matching criteria may be based upon any number of factors and may user any number of techniques including applied rules, collaborative filtering and/or machine learning. However, an overriding filter condition is commitment disposition criterion, which must match within some specified range (e.g., two individuals may not deviate in position on the slider 304 in FIG. 3 by more than 25%). [Col. 3 Lines 34-44] The commitment disposition criterion discussed in connection with FIG. 3 may be referred to as a “mood scale”. The feature 306 can be moved on scale 304 between different ‘moods’. Moving the indicator button 306 on scale 304 serves two purposes for the user. (18) First, it creates a new personal ‘mood’ attribute that is associated with that user's profile along with the other provided personal information. The mood scale characterizes whether the user is looking for a serious match (e.g., “Mr. Right”), a spontaneous match (e.g., “Mr. Right Now”), or that they are not sure (e.g., “Mr. Who Knows”).) Cheremkhin’s overriding filter condition for the commitment dispositions is an example of “predefined compatibility rules.” In [Col. 3 Lines 34-62], Cheremkhin provides examples that fall within the BRI of “rules for associating the “social intent mood categories” (Mr. Right, Mr. Right Now, Mr. Who knows), representing similar types of social interactions as compatible (Mr. Who Knows can be served other options on the scale).
- including only accounts associated with client computing devices within a geographic distance of the first computing device(Cheremkhin [Col. 2 Lines 41-44] Interface 300 also shows additional criterion 302_2 through 302_N, which may include a search radius (e.g., individuals with 10 miles) and an age range. [Col. 3 Lines 30-33] In one embodiment, a user is able to filter the profiles of other users that are served to them for viewing through setting restrictions upon the age, location, or potentially any other personal attribute.)
-providing, to the first client computing device, the eligible group for display (Cheremkhin(Col. 3 Line 62- Col. 4 Line 10) A user receives profiles of other users who have met the filtering criteria; the user is able to explore the personal information that has been added to a profile. Profiles are served to the user one-by-one, with the option to look through multiple pictures per profile, expand text, and click through to external information and profiles on other social networks. The user is able to see the commitment disposition or “mood” that the other user has selected. To ascertain the mutual agreement to connect two users together, every profile viewed must be ‘voted’ on. Having viewed the personal profile of another user, the viewing user swipes (click and drag the profile using their finger) the served profile off the screen in a certain direction (e.g., right or up) if they would like to connect with that specific user or (e.g., left or down) if they do not.)
-receiving, from the first client computing device, an identification of a selected account in the eligible group and a first offer (Cheremkhin [Col. 2 Lines 5-11] In particular, the memory 120 stores a dating application 122, which communicates with server 104 to coordinate introductions between individuals that have been identified as potential matches, and where at least one individual has accepted the potential match. (Col. 3 Lines 34-38) In one embodiment, matched users are directed to a direct messaging system supported by server 104. This system can display elements of a user’s profile in order to increase recognition of the other user (e.g., name, age, photograph). ) “introductions between individuals” is interpreted to fall within the scope of a “first offer.”
However, Cheremkhin fails to teach:
-wherein the plurality of predefined social intent mood categories includes at least one non-romantic social activity mood category representing a type of non-romantic social interaction the user is seeking;
--determining, based on the social intent mood category, a mood-specific interaction workflow by accessing a workflow data structure indexed by the social intent mood category, wherein the mood-specific interaction workflow defines a set of permitted content types and a set of permitted offer types for the social intent mood category;(this step is also representative of the following step in claim 12 lines 6-8: a workflow data structure indexed by social intent mood category and defining, for each social intent mood category, a set of permitted content types and a set of permitted offer types;)
-enforcing the mood-specific interaction workflow by blocking, via a routing module of the social networking platform, transmission of content associated with content types outside of the set of permitted content types defined by the mood-specific interaction workflow;
-providing, to a second client computing device associated with the selected account, the first offer, wherein the first offer is of a permitted offer type from the set of permitted offer types defined by the mood-specific interaction workflow;
-receiving, from the second client computing device, a first response to the first offer; and
- providing, to the first client computing device, a notification indicating the first response.
Alternatively, Kahan is directed to a system configured to facilitate relationships, a “dating app”, wherein users are able to post details about preferred dates/events, which teaches:
- a first offer; providing, to a second client computing device associated with the selected account, the first offer, (Kahan [0053] The user can then select which of the presented users with matching date specifications the user is willing to go on the date with. The selected user may then be notified that the user is interested in going on the date (with the matching date specifications). The selected user may be presented with some or all of the characteristic information provided by the user that the user indicated may be presented to others. In addition, some or all of the date specifications of the user may be presented to the selected user in conjunction with the notification (e.g., date category(s), location(s), date(s), time(s), etc.).) In this excerpt, “the date” in Kahan, anticipates “an offer” in the present disclosure, because in Kahan, date proposals are sent as invitations, which is a type of offer. Furthermore, the selected user being presented the date in Kahan, anticipates, “providing, to a second client computing device associated with the selected account, the first offer.”
- wherein the first offer is of a permitted offer type from the set of permitted offer types defined by the mood-specific interaction workflow;(Kahan [0047] Optionally, the user interface may enable the user to specify favorite date types and/or venues (e.g., loves to meet for walks, favorite specific restaurants for dates, favorite restaurant-types for dates (e.g., That restaurants), favorite specific bars for dates, favorite sporting events for dates, etc.). Some or all of the foregoing user-provided data may be stored by the system in association with a user profile/account. [0068] Optionally, a search engine may be included in or accessed via the system which enables a user to search for dates specified by other users. Optionally, the user may be able to specify one or more search filter conditions (e.g., event category(s), location(s), date(s), time(s), tags,) [0115] For example, with reference to FIG. 5A, a search field may be provided via which the user may enter search query terms (e.g., the name of a date venue, such as a restaurant; a date category, such as dining or movie; a geographical area, city, etc.). If the user begins to enter text into the search field, optionally the user is presented with suggested search terms that correspond to the search query as it is being entered, as illustrated in FIG. 5B. A menu of date categories may be presented that the user may browse.) The search for specific dates falls within the broadest reasonable interpretation of “mood-specific interaction workflow.” The presented menu of posted states are examples of “permitted offer types” from the set of permitted offer types yielded in Kahan’s search filters (defined by the mood-specific interaction workflow). Also see [0080] for the favorite date activities, specified by the user.
- receiving, from the second client computing device, a first response to the first offer; and providing, to the first client computing device, a notification indicating the first response.(Kahan [0053] If the selected user indicates (e.g., by activating an accept invitation control) a reciprocal interest in going out with the user (on the date with the matching date specifications), the user is so notified.) The selected user indicating a reciprocal interest anticipates a first response to the first offer, which results in a notification.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to modify Cheremkhin’s matching platform, by adding a feature from Kahan which allows users to send offers to go on a date. This would provide the benefit of expediting the process of getting a date by planning ahead and sending a proposal, rather than engaging in conversation that could stretch out over an extended period of time. (Kahan [0018-0020])
However, neither Cheremkhin nor Kahan teach or suggest:
-wherein the plurality of predefined social intent mood categories includes at least one non-romantic social activity mood category representing a type of non-romantic social interaction the user is seeking;
--determining, based on the social intent mood category, a mood-specific interaction workflow by accessing a workflow data structure indexed by the social intent mood category,
-wherein the mood-specific interaction workflow defines a set of permitted content types and a set of permitted offer types for the social intent mood category;
-enforcing the mood-specific interaction workflow by blocking, via a routing module of the social networking platform, transmission of content associated with content types outside of the set of permitted content types defined by the mood-specific interaction workflow;(see the rejection under 112(a) for why this claim is being interpreted broadly to encompass any blocking of types of content based on the workflow.)
Alternatively, Devecka is directed to an icon based interactive singles and dating app which allows users to search for other users that share the same icons as them, and send invites. Devecka teaches or suggests:
-wherein the plurality of predefined social intent mood categories includes at least one non-romantic social activity mood category representing a type of non-romantic social interaction the user is seeking; (Devecka [0141] In an embodiment, the user may elect to form a platonic or a `just friends` singles clique that is not specifically tailored to identifying a dating or romantic connection. For example, the user may specify this setting by interacting with the "Just Friends Co-Ed" button or link 1006, shown in FIG. 10. [0142] In an embodiment, the user may select one or more user, system or candidate icons and/or keywords for use in matching within a particular community. In this example, the user indicates that he or she wishes to identify or form a clique within the "dancing" icon community 1008. [0143] In an embodiment, the user may select a status type 1010 (e.g., a fan, participant, etc.) that he or she wishes to use to identify potential clique matches.) The platonic or just friends category falls within the scope of “non-romantic social activity mood category,” and the “dancing” icon is an example of a type of non-romantic social interaction the user is seeking.
--determining, based on the social intent mood category, a mood-specific interaction workflow...(Devecka [0068] In embodiments, the dating network genre type may provide a framework within which the user may create a dating profile, and have any number of setup screens or steps that are associated with, related to, or customized for a particular genre type. Exemplary dating genre types may include, but are not limited to, an established/external singles activities, dating platforms, dating communities genres, an icon-based singles activities and dating genre, couples dating groups, an icon-based travel and leisure services genre, and/or a singles/dating events genre (i.e., either established/external or icon system-based). One having ordinary skill in the art will appreciate that in addition to the examples described herein and shown in FIG. 2, other genre types may be employed in connection with embodiments of the present invention. [0069] In an embodiment, the dating profile setup steps may be genre-specific such that the particular genre selected by the user informs the dating profile setup workflow (e.g., the types of information and manner of presentation of screens, fields, prompts, icons, pallets, etc. presented to the user during the dating profile creation process).) Since each of the “dating genres” are examples of social intent mood categories, and each genre has a particular interaction workflow that is specific to their mood, then the determining step is satisfied by Devecka.
- by accessing a workflow data structure indexed by the social intent mood category (Devecka [0058] In an embodiment, the dating network icon system includes and/or is associated with a database (herein the "icon database") configured to store the multiple icon profiles and instructions associated with the processes performed by the dating network icon system. The icon database may include any computer readable storage medium. [0066] In embodiments of the present invention, a secondary descriptor indicator may be associated with any profile icon (e.g., 104) to indicate further information regarding a user's and or their preferred or required friend or dating candidate's relationship or specification, with an icon and its underlying dating profile element. For example, icon 104 may have associated therewith an indicator (not shown) such as a "G" for general interest, "F" for fan, "I" for instructor, "R" for requirement or other like secondary descriptor indicator. [0069] In embodiments of the present invention, based on the selection of the dating network genre received from a user in block 202, an appropriate portal (e.g., an application programming interface API or a set-up wizard) may be employed which guides the user through one or more steps relating to the creation of a dating profile. ) Devecka also satisfies this condition that the workflow is determined by accessing a workflow data structure (icon database), indexed by the social intent mood category (“G” for general interest, “F” for fan, are examples of indexing). And since the appropriate portal based on a selection of the dating network genre is selected, the limitation above is satisfied.
-wherein the mood-specific interaction workflow defines a set of permitted content types and a set of permitted offer types for the social intent mood category; (Devecka [0190] In an example, a user may highlight his or her diving hobby icon as an "active interest" and identify secondary icons and tags for their certifications and completed dives... In this example, a service vendor may then provide an offer (e.g., a singles-only diving expedition) in the available time slot. [0197] In an embodiment, the exemplary invitation and video chat shown in FIG. 19 may be provided to a user in connection with the concierge services provided by the dating network icon system. For example, the concierge services may be configured to send personalized interest and dating-related offers to a user... For example, if a dating profile includes a concerts icon and a secondary descriptor indicating a need for need for tickets to a particular rock concert, a ticket broker may provide a ticket offer to the user via the invitation 1902 shown in FIG. 19. [0198] As shown in FIG. 20, a dating profile may be integrated into an internal and/or external social gaming environment 2002. In an embodiment, the gaming environment 2002 is specifically configured for "singles" and includes multiple dating network icon system users and their associated dating profiles. [0202] In this example, the dating network icon system displays a section of a user's profile icons whereby certain game mechanics include profile analysis to encourage increased competition or cooperation potentially based on icon dating profile elements. [0204] In this example, the user may accept a challenge to compete against the other player by pressing the "Go" button. The challenge may be related to the actual icon interest such as college vs. college academic trivia game or be more associated with the theme and mechanics of the video game. The users may also communicate verbal challenges, comments and virtual bets to each other to enhance the competitive environment.) [0190] is a mood specific workflow with a set of permitted offer types (singles-only diving expedition) for the social intent mood category (diving hobby icon). The social gaming environment is an example of “a set of permitted content types” for the social intent mood category (“singles”). [0202], and [0204] provide mood-specific interaction workflows exclusive to the “social intent mood category” (the different gaming genres).
-enforcing the mood-specific interaction workflow by blocking, via a routing module of the social networking platform, transmission of content associated with content types outside of the set of permitted content types defined by the mood-specific interaction workflow; (Devecka [0188] Concierges and/or advertisers may be notified, warned or restricted if their services are rated too low by users or if they send offers unrelated to a user's profile. [0217] According to an embodiment of the present invention, users have the ability to block feeds from other members or narrow blogs and feeds to reduce or increase the length or number of posts of that feed via filters and zones. In an embodiment, the dating network icon system may also automatically perform those functions to provide the optimal community and information size. [0229] The instructions of the dating network icon system 2450 may also reside, completely or at least partially, within the main memory 2404 and/or within the processing device 2402 during execution thereof by the computer system 2400, the main memory 2404 and the processing device 2402 also constituting computer-readable media. The instructions of the dating network icon system 2450 may further be transmitted or received over a network via the network interface device 2422. ) Both Devecka [0188], and [0217] fall within the scope of the claim because it shows features of automatically blocking feeds to reduce posts via filters. Since each interest category (genre/icon), has a set of permitted content types, Devecka’s system automatically filters content and offers outside of the related content/offers for each category. Therefore, Devecka satisfies the limitation. [0229] is cited to cover the “routing module” which has the scope of a set of instructions in memory which perform the function.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of present disclosure to further modify Cheremkhin and Kahan by adding the teachings of Devecka which enable non-romantic social intent categories, a specific workflow for each social intent category, with permitted content and offer types, and features of enforcing the permitted content and offer types. By simply adding Devecka’s features to Cheremkhin and Kahan’s platform, one would have found it obvious to arrive at the predictable outcome of performing the claimed limitations because both arts are merely platforms for filtering based on preferences. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform this combination, as such mood-specific features provides the benefit of increasing the relevance of information by not overloading the user with information. (Devecka [0019] Advantageously, advertising efficacy and mutual user and advertiser benefits are realized by the dating network icon system since a user's icon profile represents user-specified, highly specific personal data regarding the user's dating profile elements (e.g., interests, activities, preferences, personality traits, fantasy attributes, travel, dining, pop culture media, celebrity news, habits, activity and singles groups, similar celebrity traits to the user, favorite dating places, and other icons specific to dating culture, theory and key matching criteria). [0217] In an embodiment, the dating network icon system may also automatically perform those functions to provide the optimal community and information size.)
Regarding Claim 2, 13:
The combination of Cheremkhin, Kahan, and Devecka teach or suggest the method of claim 1 and the system of claim 12
Furthermore, Cheremkhin teaches:
-wherein the mood indication includes only one social intent mood category, and wherein an associated mood qualifying as compatible with the mood indication includes only the one mood corresponding to the mood indication. (Cheremkhin (Col. 3 lines 45- 50) The second purpose that moving the indicator serves is to create an additional filter upon the set of user profiles served for viewing. A user having moved an indicator to the ‘Mr Right’ point on the scale, will therefore be shown the profiles of other users who have also moved their indicators to that region of the scale.) Moving the indicator to the “Mr. Right” point on the scale teaches the including only one mood, and showing the profiles of other individuals that have put their indicator on that region of the scale teaches that the only compatible mood is the same mood “Mr. Right.”
Regarding Claim 3, 14:
The combination of Cheremkhin, Kahan, and Devecka teach or suggest the method of claim 1 and the system of claim 12
Furthermore, Cheremkhin teaches:
-wherein social intent mood categories qualifying as compatible with the mood indication include the social intent mood category corresponding to the mood indication and at least one other social intent mood category. (Cheremkhin (Col. 3 Lines 50-59) In one embodiment, a user who leaves the indicator in a central position (e.g., “Mr Who Knows”) can be served users from within the “Mr Who Knows” pool, but also users from the other options on the scale.)
Regarding Claim 4, 15:
The combination of Cheremkhin, Kahan, and Devecka teach or suggest the method of claim 1 and the system of claim 12
Furthermore, Cheremkhin teaches:
-wherein: the mood indication includes a first social intent mood category and a second social intent mood category; and the applying the at least two sets of grouping criteria further comprises including only accounts with associated moods qualifying as compatible with both the first social intent mood category and the second social intent mood category. (Cheremkhin (Col. 3 Lines 50-62) Through the use of the indicator scale users are able to indicate what their intentions are as they look for matches, and also filter the other users available to view. This feature increases the quality of the matches that are possible in a social network by the filtering of possible users based on their intentions. In one embodiment, a user who leaves the indicator in a central position (e.g., “Mr Who Knows”) can be served users from within the “Mr Who Knows” pool, but also users from the other options on the scale. Users are also able to blend multiple ‘moods’ by moving their indicator button to be in a position between identified ‘moods’ on the scale, and are served the profiles of other users from both pools.)
Regarding Claim 5, 16:
The combination of Cheremkhin, Kahan, and Devecka teach or suggest the method of claim 1 and the system of claim 12
Furthermore, Cheremkhin teaches:
-a mood indication(Cheremkhin(Col. 3 Lines 39-44) First, it creates a new personal ‘mood’ attribute that is associated with that user’s profile along with the other provided personal information. The mood scale characterizes whether the user is looking for a serious match (e.g., “Mr. Right”), a spontaneous match (e.g., “Mr. Right Now”), or that they are not sure (e.g., “Mr. Who Knows”).
However, Cheremkhin fails to teach:
- providing a set of offer choices to the first client computing device, wherein the set of offer choices are of permitted offer types based on the mood-specific interaction workflow; and wherein the first offer indicates at least one offer from the set of offer choices.
Alternatively, Kahan teaches:
- providing a set of offer choices to the first client computing device, (Kahan[0072] Optionally, the system may process the monitoring results further to identify (and optionally report to users, administrators, advertisers, etc.) certain information that may be of particular interest. For example, the system may determine a certain number (e.g., 10) of the most popular event categories, locations, dates, and/or times, specified by certain types of users, such as women between the ages of 22-30 in West Hollywood, Calif. This information may, for example, be presented to men between the ages of 22-30 in West Hollywood, Calif. That have indicated they are interested in dating women.) Kahan presents a set of date proposal recommendations to users, which would teach the providing a set of offer choices in the present disclosure.
- wherein the set of offer choices are of permitted offer types based on the mood-specific interaction workflow; (Kahan [0068] Optionally, a search engine may be included in or accessed via the system which enables a user to search for dates specified by other users. Optionally, the user may be able to specify one or more search filter conditions (e.g., event category(s), location(s), date(s), time(s), tags,) [0115] For example, with reference to FIG. 5A, a search field may be provided via which the user may enter search query terms (e.g., the name of a date venue, such as a restaurant; a date category, such as dining or movie; a geographical area, city, etc.). If the user begins to enter text into the search field, optionally the user is presented with suggested search terms that correspond to the search query as it is being entered, as illustrated in FIG. 5B. A menu of date categories may be presented that the user may browse.) The search for specific dates falls within the broadest reasonable interpretation of “mood-specific interaction workflow.” The presented menu of posted states are examples of “permitted offer types” from the set of permitted offer types yielded in Kahan’s search filters (defined by the mood-specific interaction workflow). Also see [0080] for the favorite date activities, specified by the user.
-wherein the first offer indicates at least one offer from the set of offer choices. (Kahan[0075] A viewing user may view the cumulative listing of the dates that are scheduled to take place on the current day, view information regarding the respective posting users, and then optionally select one or more dates posted by respective users. By way of illustration, dates that are scheduled to take place on the current day may include dinner at Acme Diner, a Lakers basketball game, etc. If the user selects the Lakers basketball game date, the system may display information regarding some or all of the users that posted the Lakers basketball game date for the current day. Optionally, the display of the posting users may be filtered and/or ordered in accordance with the viewing user’s and/or the posting users’ specification of characteristics desired in a potential match, as described elsewhere herein. The user can then select and indicate (e.g., by issuing an invitation) that the user is interested into going on the Lakers basketball game date for the current day with the selected posting user and the selected user is so notified and may accept or decline the date invitation.) In this Kahan excerpt the user is presented a list of potential dates and issues an invitation regarding a specific offer, in this case the offer being the Lakers game. This teaches the limitation because the user indicates that the Laker’s game is the offer out of the set of offer choices that will be used as the first offer.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to modify the combination of Cheremkhin and Kahan by adding the feature of providing a list of recommended possible dates based on permitted offer types based on the mood-specific interaction workflow. It also would have been obvious to set the offer choices based on characteristics, including Cheremkhin’s mood indicator. This combined system would provide the benefit of assisting the inviter to come up a date idea that has a higher change of resulting in date by showing popular date ideas that have a higher success rate. (Kahan [0072])
Regarding Claim 6:
The combination of Cheremkhin, Kahan, and Devecka teach the method of claim 1 and the system of claim 12
However, Cheremkhin fails to teach:
-wherein the first offer indicates at least one custom offer received from the first client computing device.
Furthermore, Kahan teaches:
-wherein the first offer indicates at least one custom offer received from the first client computing device. (Kahan [0110] Still referring to FIG. 4A, a menu of date categories is provided from which the user can select. For example, the menu of date categories may optionally include food and dining, nightlife, movies, concerts, active life, performing arts, sporting events, etc. The user may scroll through the menu to view additional date categories. In addition, the user may search for a date category by entering a textual search query into a date category search field, and the system will locate and identify to the user matching date categories (if any). Optionally, if the user does not see a predefined satisfactory date category, the user can activate a “create a custom date” control provided via the user interface, which when activated presents a user interface via which the user can specify a custom date that does not fit into one of the predefined categories. For example, a user may be look for someone to go with her to a wedding she is attending, and may specify that the date event is a wedding, taking place at a specified hall, at a specified time, and the dress code for the wedding (e.g., formal, cocktail-style, casual, etc.).)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to modify the combination of Cheremkhin and Kahan to add the feature of allowing the user to use text-input to customize a particular date, as it provides the benefit of less limitations regarding the types of date proposals that can be made. As seen in the example in (Kahan [0110] it allows for the system to allow specific dates in case those dates do not exist in the database.
Regarding Claim 7, 17:
The combination of Cheremkhin, Kahan, and Devecka teach the method of claim 1 and the system of claim 12
However, Cheremkhin fails to teach:
-wherein the first response includes an acceptance to the first offer; and Furthermore, Kahan teaches: further comprising, in response to receiving the first response, allowing the first account and the second account to communicate at a promoted level.
-wherein the first response includes an acceptance to the first offer; and(Kahan[0103] If the user indicated an interest in going on the selected posted date (e.g., by activating an “interested” or “invite” control or otherwise), at state 216 the user that posted the selected post date is so notified. For example, the posting user may be notified of the viewing user’s interest by transmitting the invitation to the posting user by email, SMS, MMS, a dedicated phone application, a page presented in a browser, or otherwise.)
-further comprising, in response to receiving the first response, allowing the first account and the second account to communicate at a promoted level. (Kahan[0105] At state 224, a user interface is provided enabling the user and the invited posting user to communicate (optionally directly) to coordinate the date. For example, the system may provide a text, voice, and video-voice chat/call capabilities enabling the users to communicate in real time to coordinate the date as needed or desired. At state 226, the system optionally confirms whether the users actually went on the date (e.g., based on input from one or both users, from the venue the date took place, or otherwise). )
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to modify the combination of Cheremkhin and Kahan to add the feature in Kahan which indicates that the offer was accepted, and that upon the acceptance of an offer, permission to communicate can occur. One would be motivated by the benefit that this offer brings, specifically that it would contribute to the overall efficiency of the system and allow dates to happen faster. (Kahan [0018-0020])
Regarding Claim 8, 18:
The combination of Cheremkhin, Kahan, and Devecka teach the method of claim 1 and the system of claim 12
Furthermore, Cheremkhin teaches:
-In response to receiving a “no”, preventing the first account and the second account to continue further interaction for a period of time. (Cheremkhin(Col. 4 Lines 26-31) In one embodiment, when one user votes yes and the other user votes no, no further connection is established between the two users, and their profiles may not be shown to each-other again (or they may be shown again depending on changes within their profile, location, search parameters, or because of time elapsed).)
However, Cheremkhin fails to teach:
-wherein the first response includes a declination to the first offer; and further comprising, in response to receiving the declination,
Alternatively, Kahan teaches:
-wherein the first response includes a declination to the first offer; (Kahan[0044] Instead, another user viewing the posting may express an interest in going on the posted date (e.g., by sending an invitation to the posting user), and the posting user may decide whether or not to go on the date with such user, and activate an accept control to accept the invitation, and optionally a decline control to affirmatively decline the invitation.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to modify the combination of Cheremkhin and Kahan to substitute preventing further interaction for a period of time, in response to receiving a no, with preventing further interaction for a period of time, in response to receiving a declination to a date offer as taught by Kahan. One would be motivated to make such a substitution because it provides the benefit of redirecting the user to other possible options, instead of the user repeatedly making a date request to the same user.(Kahan [0042])
Regarding Claim 11:
The combination of Cheremkhin, Kahan, and Devecka teach the method of claim 1 and the system of claim 12:
However, neither Cheremkhin, nor Kahan teach:
- wherein the offer is a game that the first account can play with the second account.
Alternatively, Devecka teaches:
-wherein the offer is a game that the first account can play with the second account.(Devecka Fig 20 shows a dating game... [0204] In this example, the user may accept a challenge to compete against the other player by pressing the “Go” button. The challenge may be related to the actual icon interest such as college vs. college academic trivia game or be more associated with the theme and mechanics of the video game. The users may also communicate verbal challenges, comments and virtual bets to each other to enhance the competitive environment.) In the above citation, the “challenge” in Devecka, is the offer to play the game as claimed in the present disclosure, which can be accepted by pressing the go button.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to modify the combination of Cheremkhin and Kahan and include Devecka’s game feature as it would provide the benefit of making the platform more interactive and lead to more personal connection. (Devecka [0199])
Claims 9-10 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheremkhin (US 11386172 B1),
in view of Kahan(US 20150058235 A1),
further in view of Devecka (US 20120290978 A1),
further in view of Boyd et al.( US 20110270926 A1) hereinafter Boyd.
Regarding Claim 9, 19:
The combination of Cheremkhin, Kahan, and Devecka teach the method of claim 1 and the system of claim 12
However, neither Cheremkhin, Kahan, nor Devecka teach:
- wherein the first response includes a counteroffer to the first offer; and further comprising: receiving, from the first client computing device, an acceptance to the counteroffer, and in response to receiving the acceptance, allowing the first account and the second account to communicate at a promoted level.
Alternatively, Boyd is directed to an online dating/networking system that allows users to coordinate meeting times by sending counterproposals which teaches:
-wherein the first response includes a counteroffer to the first offer; and further comprising: receiving, from the first client computing device, an acceptance to the counteroffer, and (Boyd[0099]: [0030] FIGS. 3-5 depict similar steps in connection with invitation acceptance, counterproposing and browsing, respectively. In FIG. 3, a terminal (100) operated by a user submits (300) a request to accept an invitation. [0031] In FIG. 4, a terminal (100) operated by a user submits (400) a request to make a counterproposal to an invitation or sends a meeting request to another user for a proposed meeting. The system (130) receives (step 410) the request and determines (steps 420, 430) whether one or more rules, such as those stored in the rules database (160), apply to the request to make the counterproposal. The system (130) then processes (step 440) the counterproposal or other request if all the applicable rules are satisfied, and denies (step 450) the counterproposal or other request if any applicable rule is not satisfied. Preferably, the user is charged a fee to submit the request, more preferably, only charged if the request is approved by the other user confirming the meeting.)
-in response to receiving the acceptance, allowing the first account and the second account to communicate at a promoted level.(Boyd [0099] Preferably, the first and second user can communicate via double-blind email only after the meeting is confirmed (e.g., the meeting request is accepted).)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to further modify Cheremkhin by adding the counterproposal feature from Boyd, because it would provide the users the benefit of ensuring that the meeting is established in a more efficient matter. This would substitute Cheremkhin and Kahan’s system which would force you to either accept and message about the proposed change of plans, or deny and wait past the waiting period. An immediate counterproposal as taught in Boyd is the most efficient means. (Boyd [0009])
Regarding Claim 10, 20:
The combination of Cheremkhin, Kahan, and Devecka teach the method of claim 1 and the system of claim 12
Cheremkhin teaches:
- preventing the first account and the second account to continue further interaction for a period of time. (Cheremkhin(Col. 4 Lines 26-31) In one embodiment, when one user votes yes and the other user votes no, no further connection is established between the two users, and their profiles may not be shown to each-other again (or they may be shown again depending on changes within their profile, location, search parameters, or because of time elapsed).)
However, neither Cheremkhin, Kahan, nor Devecka teach:
-wherein the first response includes a counteroffer to the first offer; and further comprising: receiving, from the first client computing device, a declination to the counteroffer, and in response to receiving the declination,
Alternatively, Boyd teaches:
-wherein the first response includes a counteroffer to the first offer; and further comprising: receiving, from the first client computing device, a declination to the counteroffer, and in response to receiving the declination, (Boyd[0099]: [0030] FIGS. 3-5 depict similar steps in connection with invitation acceptance, counterproposing and browsing, respectively. In FIG. 3, a terminal (100) operated by a user submits (300) a request to accept an invitation. [0031] In FIG. 4, a terminal (100) operated by a user submits (400) a request to make a counterproposal to an invitation or sends a meeting request to another user for a proposed meeting. The system (130) receives (step 410) the request and determines (steps 420, 430) whether one or more rules, such as those stored in the rules database (160), apply to the request to make the counterproposal. The system (130) then processes (step 440) the counterproposal or other request if all the applicable rules are satisfied, and denies (step 450) the counterproposal or other request if any applicable rule is not satisfied. Preferably, the user is charged a fee to submit the request, more preferably, only charged if the request is approved by the other user confirming the meeting.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to further modify Cheremkhin by adding the counterproposal feature from Boyd, because it would provide the users the benefit of ensuring that the meeting is established in a more efficient matter. This would substitute Cheremkhin and Kahan’s system which would force you to either accept and message about the proposed change of plans, or deny and wait past the waiting period. An immediate counterproposal as taught in Boyd is the most efficient means. (Boyd [0009])
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/21/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In response to the subtitled section “Disposition of the claims” in the remarks, the examiner disagrees that support for the amendments may be found in the original disclosure. See the rejections under 112(a) above for further explanation regarding why the enforcing step of claims 1 and 12 constitute new matter.
The applicant’s amendments overcome the claim objections.
In response to applicant’s arguments over 35 U.S.C. 101, the applicant’s assertion that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, and even if they were, they provide integration through concrete system-level enforcement mechanisms. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. In regards to the arguments over Step 2A, Prong 1, the applicant asserts that the office action characterizes the claims at a high level. However, this argument is moot, the updated rejection necessitated by amendment reflects a detailed analysis of the claim language, which fully explains why the claims are at least reciting an abstract idea in Step 2a Prong 1. The applicant’s allegations that the office ignores “concrete data structures, workflow determination via data access, and system-level enforcement with Architectural locus” is not persuasive because the claims are recited at a high-level of generality such that they do not meaningfully limit the scope of the claims to technical implementations. In other words, the functions recited by the claims, other than “apply it” elements, are no more than mere instructions to “manage personal behavior.” Therefore, the applicant’s arguments that the steps are not “mental steps, social conventions, or results-only descriptions” is not persuasive because the abstract idea grouping “certain methods of organizing human activity” covers whether the activity itself falls within the sub-groupings, even for interactions between a person and a computer (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). Thus the rejection above, does not describe the claims at a high level of abstraction nor is the analysis untethered from the language of the claims. Furthermore, a “permission-gated interaction architecture” is not necessarily a technical step, as it can merely encompass a series of rules that are merely required to be performed on a general purpose computer. Constraining content based on “workflows retrieved from indexed data structures” does not recite an improvement to computer functionality, technology, or any technical field as it is merely recitation of rules. Indexing a data structure, when given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is a broad term that encompasses any categorization of information. Therefore, the applicant’s arguments are not directed to organizing human activity are not persuasive. Furthermore, the applicant’s argument that the system is directed to how a computer system enforces transmission constraints is not persuasive because according to the 112(a) analysis, the claim lacks support for any features that can be interpreted as “enforcing transmission constraints.” Therefore, given the BRI of the claims in view of the specification, “blocking transmission” is no more than claiming the idea of the outcome, and not a particular solution to achieve the outcome.
In view of the Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the applicant argues that the claims recite system-level enforcement mechanisms that control content transmission with the platform, and allege that the claims are directed to technological control, not business rules. However, the limitation in which the applicant cites is recited at such a high level of generality that it merely claims any means to block content transmission, and not a specific technological implementation. While the claims recite that it is achieved through a “routing module,” the routing module is no more than a set of instructions carried out on a general purpose computer to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, the applicant’s argument that that it is “not a business rule or recommendation” and that it is a “technological control of message routing” is not persuasive because it does not provide technical features that perform the message routing, and merely claims the idea of the outcome. Also see the 112(a) rejection above, in which this particular limitation lacks written description.
The applicant’s arguments regarding specification support for the system behavior is not persuasive because the cited portions of the specification [0033] and [0016] are not sufficient in reasonably conveying that one of ordinary skill in the art had possession of the enforcing step. Furthermore, though “routing module” is recited once in the specification, there is no specific features tied to the routing module other than that it is part of the system memory. Therefore, because there is no specific algorithm or steps for performing the function, nor does the specification provide any structures that would inherently arrive at the outcome, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Even though the claims recite a “specific way of operating a networked platform” the claims do not recite any additional elements that are more than “apply it” or mere instructions to perform the abstract idea on a generic computer.
In response to the applicant’s arguments that the claims are “consistent with Federal Circuit Precedent”, the applicant’s allegations that the claims focus on how the computer system operates differently, is not persuasive. The applicant has not established a clear nexus to McRo..., nor Finjan. As provided in the previous response to arguments in the office action dated 07/21/2025, McRo nor Finjan are not reasonably pertinent to the present claims. In other words, the considerations that made McRo or Finjan eligible do not apply to the present claims. In response to the applicant’s arguments over Step 2B, the applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive for the same reasons stated above, particularly for the “indexed workflow data structure defining permissions; Dynamic retrieval of a mood-specific workflow based on user selection; and Routing-module enforcement that blocks disallowed transmissions.” Particularly, the arguments regarding “Not Well-Understood, Routine, or Conventional” are not persuasive because the rejections do not rely on an assertion that any additional elements are “well-understood, routine or conventional.” The claims are rejected for being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, wherein the additional elements are no more than “apply it” or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or device in its ordinary capacity. Furthermore, there is no burden on the examiner to provide a factual showing of evidence supporting “well-understood, routine, conventional activities” if the rejection do not rely on the assertion. In regards to the “routing module...” which the applicant alleges is not a generic or incidental use of networking components, this argument is not persuasive because the claims do not even recite “networking components.” In this scope of the claim, the routing module is not limited to any specific structure or technology, as it is no more than part of the claimed “memory.” In order to be considered for improvements to “networking components,” the claims must necessarily reflect the improvement. See (MPEP 2106.05(f), and MPEP 2106.05(a)). Therefore, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
In view of the applicant’s arguments over claims rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, the arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive in view of the updated rejection in the present office action which is now a combination of Cheremkhin, Kahan, and Devecka. More specifically, the applicant’s arguments that Cheremkhin fails to disclose “social intent mood categories” is not persuasive because neither the claims nor the spec recite a specific definition for “social intent mood categories” that necessarily excludes Cheremkhin’s commitment dispositions. The phrase “social intent mood” is not even recited in the claims, and based on the actual scope of the claim language in its broadest reasonable interpretation, such “commitment dispositions” fall within the scope of “social intent mood categories.” Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive. In addition, Cheremkhin is no longer relied upon for “workflow-based content enforcement.” Though the examiner agrees that “Cheremkhin does not use commitment disposition to define permitted content types, permitted offer types, or enforce any transmission restrictions, this argument is not persuasive because such features are now suggested by Devecka. Therefore, the combination of Cheremkhin, Kahan, and Devecka does teach or suggest each and every limitation.
The arguments over Quy and Tikoian’s failure to disclose social intent mood categories, and workflow-indexed content enforcement have been fully considered but are moot as they are no longer part of the combination used in the present application to reject the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103. The applicant’s argument that Kahan and the remaining references fail to cure the deficiencies is not persuasive because the updated rejection above provides the accompanying citations which are mapped to the present limitations. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to the applicant’s argument that “no motivation to combine would yield the claimed invention,” the examiner respectfully disagrees. The combination of Cheremkhin, Kahan, and Devecka satisfies the limitations 1, 2, and 3 of page 19. The applicant’s allegation that none of the references address the technical problem of “constraining content transmission based on the type of social interaction a user is seeking” is a mischaracterization of at least Devecka, which tackles the exact problem in paragraph [0217]. Therefore, the argument that “none of them implement mood-indexed permission enforcement at the content transmission layer” is not persuasive because the combination satisfies each and every limitation, and Devecka teaches such permission enforcement at the content transmission layer. Therefore, the applicant’s arguments that “one cannot arrive at the claimed invention by combining references that lack this teaching” is not persuasive because the combination now relies on Devecka for these teachings. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, for software social networking systems, particularly dating/matchmaking applications, it would have been obvious to perform the combination based on the shared motivation for the systems to provide improvements to filtering and relevance. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). The examiner notes, due to the fact that the claims lack support in the specification, or written description, even the original disclosure itself could not even be used as a roadmap to arrive at “blocking, via a routing module, transmission of content associated with content types outside the set of permitted content types defined by the mood-specific interaction workflow.” Therefore, the examiner has provided the rationale and citations which show that the combination renders the claim obvious, thus none of the applicant’s arguments are persuasive.
In regards to Claims 1-8 and 12-18, these dependent claims also remain rejected under the updated rejection, thus the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 9-10 and 19-20, the applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the following reasons. The applicant alleges that “regardless of what Boyd may disclose regarding counteroffers, Boyd does not disclose to suggest the claimed social intent mood categories...” however, Boyd is not relied upon to teach any of the listed features. The combination of Cheremkhin, Kahan, Devecka, and Boyd teach or suggest each and every claim limitation within the scope of claims 9-10 and 19-20, therefore the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 11, the applicant’s arguments that Devecka fails to disclose or suggest the claimed social intent mood categories, the workflow data structure indexed by such categories, or the routing module enforcement that blocks disallowed content transmission are not persuasive, because the combination of Cheremkhin, Kahan, and Devecka are shown to satisfy these limitations. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the the combination including Devecka.
Therefore, claims 1-20 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 because the applicant’s arguments over the amended limitations are not persuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Stephen J Driscoll (US 20240257271 A1) discloses a method of reporting inappropriate conduct in online dating.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICO LAUREN PADUA whose telephone number is (703)756-1978. The examiner can normally be reached Mon to Fri: 8:30 to 5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jessica Lemieux, can be reached at (571) 270-3445. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NICO L PADUA/Junior Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/JESSICA LEMIEUX/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626