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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
1. The following is a Final Office Action in response to communication received on 10/9/2025. Claims 1-20 have been examined in this action. As of the date of this communication, no Information Disclosure Statement has been filed on behalf of this case.
2. Examiner notes: claims 21-28 were cancelled before the first action on the merits in this case and should be listed as cancelled claims in incoming claim sets, however in the efforts of compact prosecution, the Examiner has examined the claim set filed 10/9/2025.
Response to Amendment
3. Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 12, 16, and 18 are acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
4. On remarks page 9, Applicant argues that the claims do not recite a mere abstract idea. Applicant argues that the claims recite a specific improvement to the operation of a computer system for organizing professional connections. Applicant does not recite where this specific improvement on the operation of a computer system is found in the specification. Examiner does not find such argued improvement on the operation of a computer system after review of the specification.
Therefore this does not follow the analysis of MPEP 2106.05(a) with respect to Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or to any other technology or technical field [R-07.2022], and therefore is not persuasive(cited herein):
If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. For example, in McRO, the court relied on the specification’s explanation of how the particular rules recited in the claim enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could only be performed subjectively by humans, when determining that the claims were directed to improvements in computer animation instead of an abstract idea. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313-14, 120 USPQ2d at 1100-01. In contrast, the court in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC relied on the specification’s failure to provide details regarding the manner in which the invention accomplished the alleged improvement when holding the claimed methods of delivering broadcast content to cellphones ineligible. 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
After the examiner has consulted the specification and determined that the disclosed invention improves technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement in technology. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1316, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (patent owner argued that the claimed email filtering system improved technology by shrinking the protection gap and mooting the volume problem, but the court disagreed because the claims themselves did not have any limitations that addressed these issues). That is, the claim must include the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. However, the claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification (e.g., "thereby increasing the bandwidth of the channel"). The full scope of the claim under the BRI should be considered to determine if the claim reflects an improvement in technology (e.g., the improvement described in the specification). In making this determination, it is critical that examiners look at the claim "as a whole," in other words, the claim should be evaluated "as an ordered combination, without ignoring the requirements of the individual steps." When performing this evaluation, examiners should be "careful to avoid oversimplifying the claims" by looking at them generally and failing to account for the specific requirements of the claims. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313, 120 USPQ2d at 1100.
An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d at 1102-03; DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1259, 113 USPQ2d at 1107. In this respect, the improvement consideration overlaps with other considerations, specifically the particular machine consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)), and the mere instructions to apply an exception consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Thus, evaluation of those other considerations may assist examiners in making a determination of whether a claim satisfies the improvement consideration.
Rather the claims are recited at such a high level of abstract and results based claiming, in that the claims merely claim the idea of a solution or outcome, that the additional elements merely result in limitations previously found by the courts to not be enough to qualify as a practical application or significantly more, as the claims additional elements merely result in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers (see MPEP 2106.05(h) and MPEP 2106.05(a)), as detailed in the 101 rejection below.
The same analysis and response to Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 2-20 is the same as the above.
5. On Remarks page 9, Applicant argues the prior art of Sinclair but does not argue a specific feature that is not taught in Sinclair with respect to claim 1. 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 references. Sinclair is interpreted to teach the amendments as discussed in the prior art rejection below. Therefore the argument is not persuasive.
The same analysis and response to Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 7-17 is the same as the above.
6. On remarks page 10, Applicant argues the combination of Sinclair and Van Os with respect to claim 2. 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 same analysis and response to Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 3-6 and 18-20 is the same as the above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-12 are directed to a machine as the claims recite a processor executing program code and a computer storage medium. Claims 13-15 are directed to a system with limitations interpreted under 112 sixth/f and further define a processor executing program code in dependent claims 14-15. Claims 16-17 recite a process as the claims recite a method. Claims 18-20 recite a process as the claims recite a method.
The claim(s) 1-20 recite(s) determining different types of connections or interests between people, establishing mutual desired connections between the people, and providing ways that they can communicate.
Determining different types of connections or interests between people, establishing mutual desired connections between the people, and providing ways that they can communicate include observations, evaluations, judgements, and opinions that can be performed by a human or with a human with a physical aid like pen and paper, therefore the claims recite a mental process.
Further determining different types of connections or interests between people, establishing mutual desired connections between the people, and providing ways that they can communicate include subject matter which recite managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities which is a certain method of organizing human activities.
Mental processes and methods of organizing human activities are in the groupings of enumerated abstracts ideas, and hence the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims merely recite limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application in that the claims merely recite:
(1) Adding the words “apply it” ( or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and (2) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Specifically as recited in the claims:
As per claim 1, the claim recites determining different connection types for users and establishing a connection and providing functionalities based on the type of connection. These are limitations a human or humans could perform. The additional elements that these are instead performed by software running on a computer ( “at least one processor”, “at last one computer readable storage medium”, “ program code executable on the at least one processor and stored on the at least one computer readable storage medium”), “executable code” and “user interface components” merely recites in apply it.
Specifically here the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Further here the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, in that the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished, as the claims merely provide a result oriented solution and lack details as to how the computer performs the modifications which is equivalent to the words apply it.
Further limitations that could be performed by a human or humans that instead recite those limitations being performed by a computer, “executable code” and “user interface components” merely results in generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the field of computers.
As per claim 2, the claim recite a user requesting to form a connection to another user and the other user agreeing to the connection, where then the user can communicate. The additional element that these functions that could be performed by a human or humans are instead being performed by “links” merely recites in apply it.
Specifically here the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Further here the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, in that the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished, as the claims merely provide a result oriented solution and lack details as to how the computer performs the modifications which is equivalent to the words apply it.
Further limitations that could be performed by a human or humans that instead recite those limitations being performed by “links” merely results in generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the field of computers.
As per claim 3, the claim recite allowing a user to communicate directly, create a group communication channel, or invite others to group communication channel capabilities. The additional element that these communications that could be performed by a human or humans are instead being performed by “direct messaging” merely recites in apply it.
Specifically here the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Further here the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, in that the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished, as the claims merely provide a result oriented solution and lack details as to how the computer performs the modifications which is equivalent to the words apply it.
Further limitations that could be performed by a human or humans that instead recite those limitations being performed by “direct messaging” merely results in generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the field of computers.
As per claim 4, the claim recite allowing a user to communicate with multiple users in a group channel. The additional element that these communications that could be performed by a human or humans are instead being performed by “multi user chat” merely recites in apply it.
Specifically here the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Further here the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, in that the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished, as the claims merely provide a result oriented solution and lack details as to how the computer performs the modifications which is equivalent to the words apply it.
Further limitations that could be performed by a human or humans that instead recite those limitations being performed by a “multi user chat” merely results in generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the field of computers.
As per claim 5, the claim recite not allowing (not enabling) a user to communicate for certain types of connections, like a saved connection. These are limitations a human or humans could perform. There are no specific additional elements beyond those previously discussed above.
As per claim 6, the claim recite not allowing (not enabling) a user to communicate for certain types of connections, like a mutual connection. These are limitations a human or humans could perform. There are no specific additional elements beyond those previously discussed above.
As per claim 7, the claim merely describe or define the type of connection like a mutual connection is when two friends have a friend in common but are not explicitly friends. These are limitations a human or humans could perform. There are no specific additional elements beyond those previously discussed above.
As per claim 8, the claim describes that the saved connection is created based on contact information being input by the user on a public display. The additional element that the display is a “webpage” merely recites in apply it.
Specifically here the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Further here the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, in that the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished, as the claims merely provide a result oriented solution and lack details as to how the computer performs the modifications which is equivalent to the words apply it.
Further limitations that could be performed by a human or humans that instead recite the display as being a “webpage” merely results in generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the field of computers
As per claim 9, the claim recites displaying a visual indicator in a tile of a type of network connection. These are limitations a human or humans could perform. The additional elements that the display is a “user interface” merely recites in apply it.
Specifically here the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Further here the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, in that the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished, as the claims merely provide a result oriented solution and lack details as to how the computer performs the modifications which is equivalent to the words apply it.
Further limitations that could be performed by a human or humans that instead recite the display as being a “user interface” merely results in generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the field of computers
As per claim 10, the claim recites a user requesting a connection with a recommended connection being displayed to a user in on a display. These are limitations a human or humans could perform specifically, a user could look at recommendations and request a connection from a list. The additional element that the request is a “link button” merely recites in apply it.
Specifically here the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Further here the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, in that the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished, as the claims merely provide a result oriented solution and lack details as to how the computer performs the modifications which is equivalent to the words apply it.
Further limitations that could be performed by a human or humans that instead recite the request being a “link button” merely results in generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the field of computers
As per claim 11, the claim recites the display for a user to input information is provided by a professional networking system. These are limitations a human or humans could perform specifically, a professional networking system could provide input forms to users. The additional elements that the display is a “webpage” merely recites in apply it.
Specifically here the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Further here the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, in that the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished, as the claims merely provide a result oriented solution and lack details as to how the computer performs the modifications which is equivalent to the words apply it.
Further limitations that could be performed by a human or humans that instead recite the display as being a “webpage” merely results in generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the field of computers
As per claim 12, the claim recites storing and displaying notes for a user. These are mental process or human activities steps. The additional elements that these limitations are performed by software running on a computer (“ further comprising program code executable on the at least one processor and stored on the at least one computer readable storage medium”) merely results in “apply it” or generally linking it to the field of computers as detailed in claim 1 above.
Further the additional amended elements of the display is a “graphical user interface” and the information is displayed “dynamically” merely result in apply it.
Specifically here the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Further limitations that are either methods of organizing human activities or mental process steps that instead recite being performed by the additional elements of by a “graphical user interface” and the information is displayed “dynamically” merely results in generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the field of computers.
As per claim 13, the claim recite determining different connection types for users and establishing a connection and providing functionalities based on the type of connection. These are limitations a human or humans could perform. The additional elements that these are instead performed by software running on a computer ( “a first means” (see additionally claim 14) and “ a second means” (see additionally claim 15)) merely recites in apply it.
Specifically here the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Further here the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, in that the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished, as the claims merely provide a result oriented solution and lack details as to how the computer performs the modifications which is equivalent to the words apply it.
Further limitations that could be performed by a human or humans that instead recite those limitations being performed by a computer merely results in generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the field of computers.
As per claim 14, the claim merely further defines the means, which as discussed above in claim 13 merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers.
As per claim 15, the claim merely further defines the means, which as discussed above in claim 13 merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers.
As per claim 16, the claim recites saving contact information, determining different connection types for users, establishing a connection, providing functionalities based on the type of connection, and allowing the user to change the connection. These are limitations a human or humans could perform. The additional elements that these are instead “computer” implemented, the display is a “user interface” and allowing the change by “a graphical control element” merely results in apply it..
Specifically here the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Further here the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, in that the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished, as the claims merely provide a result oriented solution and lack details as to how the computer performs the modifications which is equivalent to the words apply it.
Further limitations that could be performed by a human or humans that instead recite those limitations being performed by being “computer” implemented, the display is a “user interface”, allowing the change by “a graphical control element” merely results generally linking it to the field of computers,
As per claim 17, the claim merely defines the means, which as discussed above in claim 16 previously before amendment (note, now this limitation lacks antecedent basis based on Applicant’s amendments, see 112 second/b rejection below) merely resulted in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers. Specifically using a clickable link to perform the abstract idea mental process or human activities steps.
Specifically here the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Further here the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, in that the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished, as the claims merely provide a result oriented solution and lack details as to how the computer performs the modifications which is equivalent to the words apply it.
Further the claims merely provide the connection or communication on a “user interface” on a “ device” which merely results in apply it, as discussed above with respect to clickable link.
Further limitations that could be performed by a human or humans that instead recite those limitations being performed by a “user interface” on a “ device”” and being performed by a “clickable link” merely results in generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the field of computers.
As per claim 18, the claim recite determining different connection types for users, establishing a connection, providing functionalities based on the type of connection, and allowing a user to accept or deny a connection. These are limitations a human or humans could perform. The additional elements that these are instead being performed by being “computer” implemented, by a “graphical user interface element”, and being performed by a “clickable link” merely results in apply it.
Specifically here the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Further here the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, in that the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished, as the claims merely provide a result oriented solution and lack details as to how the computer performs the modifications which is equivalent to the words apply it.
Further limitations that could be performed by a human or humans that instead recite those limitations being performed by being “computer” implemented, by a “graphical user interface element”, and being performed by a “clickable link” merely results in generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the field of computers.
As per claim 19, the claim recite not allowing (not enabling) a user to communicate for certain types of connections, like not be connected. These are limitations a human or humans could perform. The additional element of these limitations that could be performed by a human or humans are instead performed by “clickable links” merely result in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as detailed in claim 18.
As per claim 20, the claim allowing a user to accept or deny a connection by performing a selection, like circling a selection on a display like a piece of paper. These are limitations a human or humans could perform. The additional elements that these are instead performed by “clickable links” on “devices” merely recites in apply it.
Specifically here the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Further here the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, in that the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished, as the claims merely provide a result oriented solution and lack details as to how the computer performs the modifications which is equivalent to the words apply it.
Further limitations that could be performed by a human or humans that instead recite those limitations being performed by “clickable links” on “devices” merely results in generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the field of computers.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims merely recite limitations that are not indicative of an inventive concept (“significantly more”) in that the claims merely recite:
(1) Adding the words “apply it” ( or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and (2) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), as detailed above under the practical application step.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
9. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
10. Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As per claim 16, Applicant recites modifies the system state by updating the connection-type data structure. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation, the system state, in the claim, specifically the limitation system state is not previously recited in the claims. For the purposes of this examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim as follows: modifies a system state by updating the connection-type data structure.
Further claim 17 that depends off of claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As per claim 17, Applicant recites the means. However Applicant amended means out of claim 16, therefore there is no longer antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
As per claim 18, Applicant recites wherein accepting the request triggers a system update to modify the connection-type data structure to reflect a linked connection. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation, the connection type data structure, in the claim , as the limitation of connection type data structure is not previously recited in the claim. For the purposes of this examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim as follows: wherein accepting the request triggers a system update to modify a connection-type data structure to reflect a linked connection.
As per claim 18, Applicant recites wherein the third clickable link cause the connection request to be denied displaying to the second user a second graphical user interface element enabling the acceptance of the request. There appears to be a word or words missing or out of order in this claim, therefore the appropriate metes and bounds cannot be ascertained. For the purposes of this examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim as follows: wherein the third clickable link cause the connection request to be denied; and displaying to the second user a second graphical user interface element enabling the acceptance of the request.
Further claims 19-20 are rejected based on their dependency on claim 18.
As per claim 19, Applicant recites wherein the first clickable link. Based on Applicant’s amendments removing first clickable link in claim 18 from which claim 19 depends there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation, the first clickable link, in the claim.
As per claim 20, Applicant recites wherein the first clickable link is displayed on a first device, and wherein the second clickable link is displayed on a second device. Based on Applicant’s amendments removing first clickable link and second clickable link in claim 18 from which claim 20 depends there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitations, the first clickable link and the second clickable link, in the claim.
Claim Interpretation
11. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
12. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
13. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
From review of the specification and claims 14-15 that further define the means of claim 13, the corresponding means in claim 13 is that defined in claims 14-15.
14. This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “means includes a clickable link on a user interface, and where the user interface is displayed on a device” in claim 17.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
15. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
-a graphical control element to allow either the first user or the second user to change the enabled communication functionalities, wherein the graphical control element modifies the system state by updating the connection-type data structure (see claim 16)
-a graphical user interface element to generate a connection request message directed to the second user (see claim 18)
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
From review of the specification, the corresponding structure for the graphical control element for claim 16 and 18 is a clickable link (see Figure 19 and paragraph 0035)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
16. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
17. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
18. Claim(s) 1 and 7-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Sinclair et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2016/0132198).
As per claim 1, Sinclair teaches A system for professional networking, comprising: (see paragraphs 0018, 0028, 0089, and 0172-0174, Examiner’s note: a recommendation system for friends (see paragraphs 0172-0174), where this can also be for employees (see paragraphs 0018, 0028, and 0089)).
at least one processor; at least one computer readable storage medium storing structured connection-type data; (see paragraphs 0053, 0069, 0073, and 0198, Examiner’s note: a machine readable medium can be used to store software and data which when executed by a data processing system causes the system to perform various methods, where the methods perform information related to connections. (see paragraphs 0053 and 0069). Here this information is structured as broadly recited in the claims as all of this data is arranged to determine connections based on rules like clustering, statistical analysis (e.g. a plan to determine information)(see paragraph 0073)).
a plurality of connection types including a mutual connection, a saved connection, and a linked connection; (see paragraph 0020, 0062, 0070, 0089, 0108, and 0155, Examiner’s note: teaches storing profile information in a database, and using that information to provide user recommendations to the user, it is noted that mutual connection, saved, and linked connection are broad terms that can read on things like information from profiles, degrees of separation or friends of users, and user requests for specific types of users).
program code executable on the at least one processor and stored on the at least one computer readable storage medium, for: (see paragraph 0198, Examiner’s note: a machine readable medium can be used to store software and data which when executed by a data processing system causes the system to perform various methods).
(a) determining a selected connection type from the plurality of connection types assigned to a pair of users in the system for professional networking; (see paragraph 0020, 0062, 0070, 0089, 0108, 0118, and 0155, Examiner’s note: teaches storing profile information in a database, and using that information to provide user recommendations to the user, it is noted that mutual connection, saved, and linked connection are broad terms read on things like information from profiles, degrees of separation or friends of users, and user requests for specific types of users).
and (b) controlling, based on the selected connection type, availability of one or more user interface components and communication functionalities, including at least messaging or group channel features, wherein said control is enforced by enabling or disabling executable code associated with said functionalities (see paragraphs 0014-015, 0119, and 0125-0127, and Figures 3, 9, 12, and 20, Examiner’s note: teaches many different networking functionalities where they are based on the member connection, for example joining different groups of a specific user or for example if the specific user does not link to other user based on what they requested for example someone from a specific college or speaks a certain language they are not shown therefore the functionalities are based on the selected connection type).
As per claim 7, Sinclair teaches
wherein a mutual connection is created when a first user and a second user are both connected to a third user, and wherein the first user and the second user are not connected (see paragraphs 0100, 0118, 0121, 0127, 0139, 0165-0166, and 0178-0179, Examiner’s note: teaches mutual connections or degree of separations and how they are used to be recommended to users in the system of machine learning)
As per claim 8, Sinclair teaches
wherein a saved connection is created when contact information is entered into a first user's public facing webpage (see paragraphs 0020, 0026, 0040-0041, 0043-0045, 0111, and 0133, Examiner’s note: teaches storing profile information in a database, and extracting information for recommendations from public networks like LinkedIn).
As per claim 9, Sinclair teaches
wherein the system is configured to display a user interface, and wherein the user interface includes a tile of a network connection, and wherein the tile includes a visual indicator as to the connection type of the network connection (see Figures 3-10, 12-16, and 24 Examiner’s note: shows different types of displays with tiles showing different types of connections and visual indicators to the user on the employee recommendation system).
As per claim 10, Sinclair teaches
wherein the tile of a network connection includes a request to link button that when selected causes a request to link with a user identified in the tile to be generated. (see Figures 3-10, 12-16, and 24 Examiner’s note: shows different types of displays with tiles showing different types of connections and visual indicators to the user on the employee recommendation system. Figures include follow, connect, join, and invite buttons).
As per claim 11, Sinclair teaches
wherein the first user's public facing webpage is provided by the system for professional networking. (see paragraphs 0020, 0026, 0040-0041, 0043-0045, 0111, and 0133, Examiner’s note: teaches stor