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 . The present application was filed on 3/14/2023, and claims priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 62/608,434, filed on 12/22/2017.
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to application number 18/183,502 filed 3/14/2023. Claim 1 was amended in the reply filed 8/12/2024. Claim 1 was amended in the reply filed 3/3/2025. Claim 1 was amended in the reply filed 9/29/2025. Claims 1-8 are pending and have been considered below. This action is non-final.
Response to Arguments
Regarding Applicant’s argument starting on page 5 regarding claims 1-8: Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to the rejections made under 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Applicant first argues that the amended claims overcome the § 101 rejection by transforming improvements and unconventional computer implementations that provide significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The alleged improvements that Applicant’s invention provides are business improvements to a business related process, and not improvements to a computer system technology itself (See MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for examples and description of what is considered an improvement to a computer-functionality or an improvement to a technology). "Identifying, analyzing, and presenting certain data to a user is not an improvement specific to computing." International Business Machines Corp. v. Zillow Group, Inc., (Fed. Cir. No. 2021-2350, Oct. 17, 2022, pg. 8). The claimed computer components are generic and broadly recited, and the alleged improvements are not to the generic computer components themselves, but to the abstract process being performed by the computer components. Examiner respectfully argues that the claimed limitations not analogous to the MPEP descriptions and examples of improvements to computer-functionality or improvements to a technology, and that the claims are directed to an abstract idea. This applies to Applicant’s arguments regarding the combination of the server, dynamic pricing algorithm, location broadcasting technology, background check validation system, and mapping. The combination of these additional elements merely describe a generic computer environment upon which the abstract idea is being “applied.”
Regarding Applicant’s argument starting on page 7 regarding claims 1-8: Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to the rejections made under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered, and are persuasive. Examiner considers claims 1-8 are considered novel over the prior art.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites A dining group interest connection system for connecting guests with individual expert hosts for intellectually stimulating dining conversations comprising: a server having a memory storing guest data, host data and an application that supplies programming to the server, wherein the server is accessible and operated by a restaurant reservation system to reserve a table and is configured to interface with external food delivery services and restaurant reservation systems; a host computing device coupled to the server, and a guest computing device coupled to the server and operating a mobile application and a proximity sensing module, wherein the proximity sensing module broadcasts location information, wherein the server, through the stored application, is programmed to: receive and store host data of registered hosts who are individual experts and professionals, wherein the host data comprises all areas of expertise, knowledge, skills, experience, and classifications of the same for each of the registered hosts; validate the identity of each of the registered hosts and validate each of the registered hosts as having the requisite expertise stored in the host data; receive a field of interest from the guest computing device and store the field of interest as part of the guest data; receive a request from the guest computing device requesting a dining experience with a registered host, the request including a location of the guest computing device from the proximity sensing module, and automatically access the stored guest data associated with a guest and host data to determine a match between the guest and a list of registered hosts, wherein the match of the guest data and the host data comprises the host data including registered hosts having expertise in the field of interest and who are individual professionals compensated for sharing their knowledge and experience with guests stored in the guest data, and wherein the list of registered hosts comprises location information received by the server from registered hosts forming the list of registered hosts, the list of registered hosts include registered hosts matching the guest data and within a predetermined proximity of the guest computing device, and a fee for dining with the registered host; and the fee for dining with the registered host is automatically adjusted in real time by the server based on a dynamic pricing algorithm that processes demand data comprising a number of dining experiences and unique dining guest ratings for the registered host; send for display on the guest computing device, the list of registered hosts, wherein each registered host who is an individual expert of the list of registered hosts is selectable through the guest computing device; send for display on the guest computing device a map depicting the location of the guest computing device and a location of a venue for each registered host, wherein the map includes directions to venue locations; receive a selection of the registered host and a dining location from the guest computing device and automatically book a dining experience for the guest and the registered host, wherein the registered host is compensated separately from the dining experience for sharing expertise and knowledge in the field of interest; and send for display on the guest computing device, a confirmation of the dining experience and directions on the map to the location of the registered host. Therefore, claim 1 is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention: a system.
The claim 1 limitations ... connecting guests with individual hosts for intellectually stimulating dining conversations ... receive and store host data of registered hosts who are individual experts and professionals, wherein the host data comprises all areas of expertise, knowledge, skills, experience, and classifications of the same for each of the registered hosts; validate the identity of each of the registered hosts and validate each of the registered hosts as having the requisite expertise stored in the host data; receive a field of interest ... and store the field of interest as part of the guest data; receive a request … requesting a dining experience with a registered host, the request including a location of the guest … and automatically access the stored guest data associated with a guest and host data to determine a match between the guest and a list of registered hosts, wherein the match of the guest data and the host data comprises the host data including registered hosts having expertise in the field of interest and who are individual professionals compensated for sharing their knowledge and experience with guests stored in the guest data, and wherein the list of registered hosts comprises location information received … from registered hosts forming the list of registered hosts, the list of registered hosts include registered hosts matching the guest data and within a predetermined proximity of the guest ... and a fee for dining with the registered host; and the fee for dining with the registered host is automatically adjusted in real time ... based on ... demand data comprising a number of dining experiences and unique dining guest ratings for the registered host; send for display … the list of registered hosts, wherein each registered host who is an individual expert of the list of registered hosts is selectable … send for display … a map depicting the location of the guest ... and a location of a venue for each registered host, wherein the map includes directions to venue locations; receive a selection of the registered host and a dining location … and automatically book a dining experience for the guest and the registered host, wherein the registered host is compensated separately from the dining experience for sharing expertise and knowledge in the field of interest; and send for display … a confirmation of the dining experience and directions on the map to the location of the registered host, as drafted, is a method that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, only covers concepts which may be categorized as “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” (e.g., commercial interaction – business relations). That is, nothing in the claim discloses anything outside the grouping of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” (e.g., commercial interaction – business relations). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.-
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of the aforementioned abstract idea using a dining group interest connection system, a server, a memory, an application that supplies programming to the server, a restaurant reservation system, a host computing device, a guest computing device, a mobile application, a proximity sensing module, and a dynamic pricing algorithm. The claimed components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as generic computer components to perform the aforementioned abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computerized system is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, the aforementioned additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the aforementioned abstract idea using generic computer components. The additional elements a dining group interest connection system (described in spec. para. [0018]), a server (described in spec. para. [0019]), a memory (described in spec. para. [0019]), an application that supplies programming to the server (described in spec. para. [0019]), a restaurant reservation system (described in spec. para. [0027]), a host computing device (described as “expert’s device” in spec. para. [0030]), a guest computing device (described in spec. para. [0024]), a mobile application (described in spec. para. [0030]), a proximity sensing module (described in spec. para. [0030]), and a dynamic pricing algorithm (described in spec. para. [0021]) are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to perform the aforementioned abstract idea. The additional elements are described at a high-level indicating the well-known nature of each of these additional elements in the art. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computerized system does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims add significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 2-8 have been given the full two part analysis including analyzing the limitations both individually and in combination. Claims 2-8 when analyzed individually, and in combination, are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the recited limitations of the dependent claims merely further narrow the abstract idea.
The limitations of the dependent claims fail to integrate an abstract idea into a practical application because the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the aforementioned abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claims as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the aforementioned abstract idea. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims add significantly more to the abstract idea.
Performing the further narrowed abstract ideas of the dependent claims on the additional elements of the independent claim, individually or in combination, do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas and amount to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Similarly, the recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Reasons for Novelty
Claims -1-8 are considered novel over the prior art. Examiner has determined that the combination of claim elements is unanticipated by prior art and that it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to have arrived at the claimed invention. In the previous office action Examiner rejected the independent claims as being obvious over Ditoro (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0365249) in view of Tiernan (US Pub. No. 2014/0143354) in view of Leisher (US Pub. No. 2015/0371265) in view of Li (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0364836). Examiner considers these references the closest prior art to the claimed invention. However, given the amendments to the independent claims, Examiner has determined that the previously cited combinations of references do not teach the independent claims as a whole. Furthermore, Examiner has determined that it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine these previously cited references with further prior art in order to arrive at the claimed invention. Therefore, the independent and dependent claims are all considered novel over the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRIS GOMEZ whose telephone number is (571) 272-0926. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 AM – 4:30 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, SHANNON CAMPBELL can be reached at (571) 272-5587. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/CHRISTOPHER GOMEZ/ Examiner, Art Unit 3628