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 final rejection in response to amendments/remarks filed on 07/22/2025. Claims 1-20 are original, remain pending and are examined herein.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Is the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture, or Composition of Matter?
Claims 1-13, 19 and 20: A computing device comprising: one or more processors; and one or more computer-readable devices in communication with the one or more processors, the one or more computer-readable devices including instructions that when executed by the one or more processors cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
Claims 14-18: A computer-implemented method,
Claims 1-13, 19 and 20 recite a computing device with processors, and computer-readable devices with software instructions, which provides adequate structure to perform the functions mentioned afterwards, therefore this is eligible under step 1 for being a claim to a machine. Claims 14-18 recite a computer-implemented method which falls under process, therefore all of the claims pass step 1 and are to be further analyzed under step 2.
Step 2a Prong 1: Is the claim directed to 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 14 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 computing device comprising: one or more processors; and one or more computer-readable devices in communication with the one or more processors, the one or more computer-readable devices including instructions that when executed by the one or more processors cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: receiving a first post from a first user device associated with a first user account, wherein the first post includes: a first title or a first description; a first location; a first time interval; and one or more first tags; receiving a second post from a second user device associated with a second user account, wherein the second post includes: a second title or a second description; a second location; a second time interval; and one or more second tags; identifying whether there is a match between the first post and the second post, wherein a match is determined when a specific set of tag matching parameters are satisfied between the first post and the second post; when the specific set of tag matching parameters are not satisfied between the first post and the second post, not allowing the first user account to view the second post, not allowing the second user account to view the first post, not allowing chat functionality between the first user account and the second user account, and not allowing profile viewing between the first user account and the second user account; when the specific set of tag matching parameters are satisfied between the first post and the second post, providing both the first user account and the second user account access to details related to the manner in which the tag matching parameters were satisfied, providing the first user account access to view the second post, providing the second user account access to view the first post, providing the first user account an option to enable chat functionality between the first user account and the second user account; and providing the second user account to enable chat functionality between the first user account and the second user account; after providing both the first user account and the second user account access to details related to the manner in which the tag matching parameters were satisfied, providing the first user account access to view the second post, providing the second user account access to view the first post, providing the first user account an option to enable chat functionality between the first user account and the second user account; and providing the second user account to enable chat functionality between the first user account and the second user account, when the one or more processers do not receive consent to enable chat functionality between the first user account and the second user account from both the first user account and the second user account, not allowing chat functionality between the first user account and the second user account and not allowing profile viewing between the first user account and the second user account; when the one or more processers receive consent to enable chat functionality between the first user account and the second user account from both the first user device and the second user device, providing chat functionality between the first user account and the second user account; after providing chat functionality between the first user account and the second user account, when the one or more processers do not receive consent to share the first user account profile with the second user account from the first user device and do not receive consent to share the second user account profile with the first user account from the second user account device, not allowing profile viewing between the first user account and the second user account; when the one or more processers receive consent to share the first user account profile with the second user account from the first user device and receive consent to share the second user account profile with the first user account from the second user account device, allowing profile viewing between the first user account and the second user account.
Claim 14: A computer-implemented method, comprising: receiving in a computing device a first post from a first user device associated with a first user account, wherein the first post includes: a first title or a first description; a first location; a first time interval; and one or more first tags; receiving the computing device a second post from a second user device associated with a second user account, wherein the second post includes: a second title or a second description; a second location; a second time interval; and one or more second tags; identifying whether there is a match between the first post and the second post, wherein a match is determined when a specific set of tag matching parameters are satisfied between the first post and the second post; when the specific set of tag matching parameters are not satisfied between the first post and the second post, not allowing the first user account to view the second post, not allowing the second user account to view the first post, not allowing chat functionality between the first user account and the second user account, and not allowing profile viewing between the first user account and the second user account; when the specific set of tag matching parameters are satisfied between the first post and the second post, providing both the first user account and the second user account access to details related to the manner in which the tag matching parameters were satisfied, providing the first user account access to view the second post, providing the second user account access to view the first post, providing the first user account an option to enable chat functionality between the first user account and the second user account; and providing the second user account to enable chat functionality between the first user account and the second user account; after providing both the first user account and the second user account access to details related to the manner in which the tag matching parameters were satisfied, providing the first user account access to view the second post, providing the second user account access to view the first post, providing the first user account an option to enable chat functionality between the first user account and the second user account; and providing the second user account to enable chat functionality between the first user account and the second user account, when the computing device does not receive consent to enable chat functionality between the first user account and the second user account from both the first user account and the second user account, not allowing chat functionality between the first user account and the second user account and not allowing profile viewing between the first user account and the second user account; when the computing device receives consent to enable chat functionality between the first user account and the second user account from both the first user device and the second user device, providing chat functionality between the first user account and the second user account; after providing chat functionality between the first user account and the second user account, when the computing device does not receive consent to share the first user account profile with the second user account from the first user device and do not receive consent to share the second user account profile with the first user account from the second user account device, not allowing profile viewing between the first user account and the second user account; when the computing device receives consent to share the first user account profile with the second user account from the first user device and receive consent to share the second user account profile with the first user account from the second user account device, allowing profile viewing between the first user account and the second user account.
When evaluating the bolded limitations of the claims under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, it is clear that representative claims 1, 11, and 20 recite an abstract idea within the category of “certain methods of organizing human activity.” More specifically, the present invention falls under the sub-grouping “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” include social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions as outlined in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C). The claims in bold recite the steps summarized as “Allowing users to make a post displaying data, allowing the users to input parameters that would constitute a match with another user’s post, enabling the users to view the post, chat, or view the other’s profile if the match has been detected, and not enabling the users to view the post, chat, or view the other’s profile without a detected match or without express consent from the other user.” Therefore, the claims in bold provide steps of facilitating social interactions between individuals, and particularly outlining rules or instructions for them to follow in the social interaction. The words “enable” and “allow” that the system is completely dependent on human interactions to function, and the steps of detecting when the matching parameters are satisfied is essentially a way of filtering content. Additionally, the instant claims encompass the nontechnical activity of matchmaking, which is a social function that is a basic/longstanding practice encompassing the same steps. The specification [0004] even points to “Conventional systems that attempt to solve the missed connection problem, such as newspaper missed connection postings or classified sites...” Though the claims aim to differentiate the instant claims from conventional systems, the claim language itself still recites abstract idea steps that recite the management of personal behavior and interactions between people. Even the steps of enabling chat functionality after parameters are fulfilled is not a specific recitation of a security system that protects a user’s privacy, but it is a recitation of rules or instructions and managing interactions between people, which falls under the abstract idea category of “certain methods of organizing human activity.”
Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea and are to be further analyzed under step 2a Prong 2.
Step 2A Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
Claims 1 and 14 recite the following additional elements:
- A computing device(claim 1) comprising:
-one or more processors; and
-one or more computer-readable devices in communication with the one or more processors, the one or more computer-readable devices including instructions that when executed by the one or more processors cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
-a first user device (claims 1, 14)
-a second user device (claims 1, 14)
-A computing device(claim 14)
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 of “Allowing users to make a post displaying data, allowing the users to input parameters that would constitute a match with another user’s post, enabling the users to view the post, chat, or view the other’s profile if the match has been detected, and not enabling the users to view the post, chat, or view the other’s profile without a detected match or without express consent from the other user” is being performed on generic computing components such as computing devices, processors, computer-readable devices, and user devices. The specification makes it evident that these devices are generic computing devices in [0049], “Referring to Fig. 1, each of a first user 102 and a second user 104 accesses a server 106 through a first user device 108 and a second user device 110. The system 100 runs a software application, such as a mobile application and/or a desktop application, embodied in software on the server 106 to provide the functionality described herein.” Since the claims do not require a specific, improved upon computing infrastructure to perform the claims, there is no improvement to the technology recited, as outlined in MPEP 2106.05(a). Therefore the claims are directed to an abstract idea without integration into a practical application because the additional elements are merely a recitation of the words “apply it” as outlined in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Claims 1 and 14 recite the following additional elements:
- A computing device(claim 1) comprising:
-one or more processors; and
-one or more computer-readable devices in communication with the one or more processors, the one or more computer-readable devices including instructions that when executed by the one or more processors cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
-a first user device (claims 1, 14)
-a second user device (claims 1, 14)
-A computing device(claim 14)
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 computing devices, processors, computer-readable devices, and user devices 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 14 are not patent eligible because the claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding dependent claims 2-13, 15-20:
Claims 2-6 and 19 further limit the abstract idea by defining the types of data that is included in “tags.” For example Claims 2 and 19 recite that the tags relate to the user or to a missed connection. Claim 3 recites that the tags include permanent and nonpermanent attributes and claim 4 states that the tags includes “situational context tags.” Claims 5-6 define these situational context tags as relating to a location or a time interval. This is more of the same abstract idea, because even when substituting these specific types of tags into the claims they depend on, the claims still recite, “Allowing users to make a post displaying data, allowing the users to input parameters that would constitute a match with another user’s post, enabling the users to view the post, chat, or view the other’s profile if the match has been detected, and not enabling the users to view the post, chat, or view the other’s profile without a detected match or without express consent from the other user.” Furthermore, the claims do not recite any further additional elements, therefore the claims are directed to an abstract idea without integration into a practical application or significantly more.
Claims 7, 8, 15, and 16 further define the abstract idea by adding the additional step of allowing the user account to determine the tag matching parameters for the post. This is still part of the abstract idea of “managing personal behavior or interactions between individuals” because it merely facilitates the activities of an individual and their interactions with other users on the platform. In combination with the claims they depend on, they recite more of the same abstract idea. Furthermore, the claims do not recite any further additional elements, therefore the claims are directed to an abstract idea without integration into a practical application or significantly more.
Claims 9, 10, 17, and 18 further define the abstract idea by adding the step that the computing device determines the tag matching parameters. Determination of the tag matching parameters is more of the same abstract idea. The fact that the parameters are determined by the computing device, is merely an additional element that is an example of “apply it” or mere instructions to perform the abstract idea on a computer as outlined in MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without integration into a practical application or significantly more.
Claims 11-13, and 20 merely further limit the abstract idea by providing examples of “tag matching parameters.” For example, claim 11 requires the parameters to include “specific tags”, claim 12 requires a specified number of parameters to match, and claim 13 requires a percentage of the parameters to match. Claim 20 only requires one of the three. When combined with the claims they depend on, the claims still recite more of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the claims do not recite any further additional elements, therefore the claims are directed to an abstract idea without integration into a practical application or significantly more.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
Even after an updated search on the claims in light of the disclosure, the examiner has determined the following sources to remain as the most pertinent prior art of record and has found that the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest every single limitation, whether separately or viewed in an obvious combination. As stated in the first office action filed on 04/22/2025:
-S. Sejo Pan (US 20100262932 A1) is the closest prior art of record which discloses a system of subsequently connecting people who have crossed paths in person. Pan still fails to disclose:
- “after providing both the first user account and the second user account access to details related to the manner in which the tag matching parameters were satisfied, providing the first user account access to view the second post, providing the second user account access to view the first post, providing the first user account an option to enable chat functionality between the first user account and the second user account; and providing the second user account to enable chat functionality between the first user account and the second user account, when the one or more processers do not receive consent to enable chat functionality between the first user account and the second user account from both the first user account and the second user account, not allowing chat functionality between the first user account and the second user account and not allowing profile viewing between the first user account and the second user account; when the one or more processers receive consent to enable chat functionality between the first user account and the second user account from both the first user device and the second user device, providing chat functionality between the first user account and the second user account;”
-“after providing chat functionality between the first user account and the second user account, when the one or more processers do not receive consent to share the first user account profile with the second user account from the first user device and do not receive consent to share the second user account profile with the first user account from the second user account device, not allowing profile viewing between the first user account and the second user account; when the one or more processers receive consent to share the first user account profile with the second user account from the first user device and receive consent to share the second user account profile with the first user account from the second user account device, allowing profile viewing between the first user account and the second user account.”
Instead, Pan conveys the matching result to the users without specifying a particular interface of consenting to communications or profile visibility. Furthermore, whilst the representative claims require the posts, profiles, and chat functionalities to not be visible unless the parameters have been matched, Pan’s matching results are made available to a wider community in at least [0044].
-Ronen Benchetrit (US 20230206350 A1) fails to remedy the defects of Pan, and therefore even in a hypothetical combination, they would fail to teach or suggest all the limitations of claim 1.
-Adamski et al (US 11483276 B2) does disclose revealing a profile after enabling chat functionalities, but a hypothetical combination must teach or suggest all of the claimed elements AND be obvious to combine to a person of ordinary skill in the art. It would not be obvious to combine because Adamski teaches a more traditional dating app that allows dating candidates to match with each other with the goal of getting to know the other person. On the other hand, the present invention, as well as Pan and Ronen have the purpose of reconnecting two people who have already met but have not exchanged information with each other. Unlike Adamski, the users specifically post describing a specific person with particular parameters, whereas traditional dating applications such as Adamski allow the user to describe a “type” that they are attracted to.
-"Missed Connections", Captured. Jun 4 2017, "https://www.digiart21.org/art/missed-connections" (Year: 2017) discloses a website project created by R. Luke Dubois in 2012 that sifts through the missed connections section of craiglists for nine different cities to find posts that refer to one another. Upon determining a match using an algorithm, the user is directed to the original missed connection post and could find the emails of the craigslist posters. However, while it teaches the matching of the parameters of two separate posts, because it does not teach features such as enabling chat functionality or not allowing profile viewing until a match has been found.
Therefore representative claims 1 and 14 would be allowable over prior art if the claims overcome the rejections over 101 because the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest every single limitation whether individually or in a hypothetical combination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding arguments over the rejection of claims 1-20 over prior art, the applicant submits that the claims as amended do not recite a judicial exception (Step 2A, prong one), and further that the claims amount to significantly more than any recited judicial exception. For clarity of the record, as seen in the claims filed 07/22/2025, and as acknowledged by the applicant in the remarks, the claims remain original and not have been amended. The specific arguments regarding Step 2A and Step 2B are as follows.
The applicant asserts that independent claims 1 and 14 require specific structures to enable data sharing of select information upon matching tags and other user input, “thus the claims are not directed to methods of organizing human activity.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. The recitation of specific structures, including hardware structures, does not eliminate the possibility of the claims being directed to certain methods of organizing human activity. The rejection in the present office action, as well as the rejection filed in the first office action dated 04/22/2025, clearly explain why the claims recite an abstract idea, and why the additional elements merely instruct that abstract idea to be performed on generic computing components. Please see MPEP 2106.05(f).
In pages 8-9, the applicant further argues that the claims recite a specific, highly-structured and ordered, technology-based solution through which users can connect with one another while controlling the sharing of information. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. In the scope of the claims, the functional limitations are merely implemented onto generic computing technology. The claims do not recite specific improved computing processes, but merely the abstract idea steps themselves, while limiting it to the use of computers after the fact. For example, the claims recite “receiving a first post from a first user device...wherein the first post includes: ... tags; a second post...includes: tags; identifying whether there is a match, wherein a match is determined when a specific set of tag matching parameters are satisfied...;” In this case, the devices are merely used to facilitate the abstract idea, performing software functions that are well within its ordinary capacity as a generic computing device. Therefore, the applicant’s argument regarding “the claimed systems and methods select the tags...amounting to a specific structure that is utilized to determine whether to allow information sharing...” and “additional user input” is not persuasive, because it merely recites part of the matchmaking process but merely implemented on generic computing devices. The applicant has not set forth why each of the steps bolded above do not fall under “managing personal behavior or interactions between individuals,” nor has the applicant explained why the additional elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the arguments surrounding step 2b in page 10, the applicant asserts that the combination of features recited in the claims amounts to significantly more. The applicant argues that “prior attempts to solve these “missed connections” are inefficient because the systems do not provide sufficient privacy or anonymity to the users...” and that the present claims solve said problem by providing a safe and secure online platform. The examiner has fully considered this argument, but respectfully disagrees. Even assuming that an improvement exists, MPEP 2106.05(a) requires that the improvement is to the functioning of a computer, a particular technological environment or a technical field. The alleged improvement of “providing a safe and secure online platform through which people can find their real life missed connections and through which users can connect to others on their own terms and reveal their identity only when they are confident they have connected with the right person” is merely an improvement to the abstract idea of “managing personal behavior or interactions or relationships between people,” inherent to performing the abstract idea on a computer. Improvements to the abstract idea are still recitations of an abstract idea. Therefore, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
In addition, the examiner notes that there is no improvement to any technological environment or field of use. For example, the applicant’s alleged improvement to security does not count as a technical improvement, because the claims merely recite the obscuring of information until a match has been detected by the system, and both users agree to the match, merely “applied to” computer technology. This does not count as an improvement because these steps fall under managing personal interactions between individuals. Therefore, even when considering the claims as a whole, or the additional elements individually or in combination, there is no integration of the abstract idea into a practical application nor is there significantly more. Therefore, claims 1-20 remain patent ineligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
-Jon Anthony Astore (US 20150066892 A1) discloses a search service to search for a desired person using keywords for particular users on a social media platform.
- Kapczynski et al. (US 8484186 B1) discloses a system for finding a match person based on a search request at least partially identifying the user.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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