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 Claims
This action is in reply to the Applicant’s election of claims 1-10 in the reply filed on September 17, 2025. The election is hereby acknowledged.
Claims 1-10 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: There is no period at the end of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 7, 8 are objected to because of the following informalities: The word homeowner appears as two words in various claims throughout, and one word in other claims. Examiner suggests consistency between “homeowner” and “home owner.”
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-10 are drawn to methods As such, claims 1-10 are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A - Prong One:
Claim 7 (representative of independent claim(s) 1) recites the following steps:
A method for facilitating homeowner oriented social connections, the method comprising:
aggregating home data regarding a plurality of factors associated with a plurality of homes;
aggregating user-homeowner data regarding a plurality of factors associated with owners of said plurality of homes;
providing, questionnaires to user-homeowners, said user- homeowners associated with one or more of said plurality of homes;
receiving responses to said questionnaires from said user-home owners;
determining, a subset of user-homeowners to be recommended to individual user-home owners as social contacts based upon the user-homeowner data and the questionnaire data of the user-homeowners;
determining, a ranking within said set of user-homeowner based upon factors associated with the homes of the user-homeowner and the questionnaire responses of said user-home owner; and
providing, a list of user-home owners recommended for social connection to a user-homeowner.
These steps, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass a human manually (e.g., in their mind, or using paper and pen) facilitating homeowner oriented social connections, (i.e., one or more concepts performed in the human mind, such as one or more observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions), but for the recitation of generic computer components. If one or more claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "mental processes" subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 7 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A - Prong One: YES).
Independent claim(s) 1 is determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis.
Step 2A - Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim(s) recite the additional elements/limitations of:
computer implemented(Claim 7 & 1)
, by one or more processors, (Claim 7 & 1)
by the server, (Claim 7 & 1)
at a server from a consumer device (Claim 1)
system user-homeowners (Claim 1)
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions listed above is equivalent to adding the words ''apply it'' on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on producing the abstract idea and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A -Prong Two: NO).
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above in "Step 2A - Prong 2", the requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions listed above is equivalent to adding the words "apply it" on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations therefore do not qualify as "significantly more" (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)).
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
Regarding Dependent Claims:
Dependent claims 3 and 8-10 fail to include any additional elements and are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner.
Dependent claims 2, 4-6, include additional limitations that are part of the abstract idea except for:
by the server
The additional elements of the dependent claims are equivalent to adding the words ''apply it'' on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dodge (2014/0143333) in view of Pic (2016/0094684).
Claim 1
Dodge discloses a computer implemented method comprising:
receiving, at a server from a consumer device, a request from a first system user- See “The social management functions 232 may comprise any type and form of user interface elements, widgets and functional components ( e.g., executable instructions) to implement various functions such as requesting and accepting a connection between users or otherwise linking between users…”
providing, by the server, a questionnaire to said user-See at least “The personality test may comprise any type and form of survey, questionnaire or test that evaluates and identifies a personality type, preferences, or traits.”
Dodge does not explicitly teach ranking social connections between users. Pic teaches:
determining, by the server, a set of system user-See “here is provided a system for displaying a graphical user interface for presenting and suggesting connections to other users.”
determining, by the server, a ranking of said system user-See at least “The social discovery application provides a user a rank order list of people most like them. For example, Rob is 94% like them, Jill is 91 % like them, and Rick is 88% like them.”
providing, by the server, a list of user-See there is described a method of suggesting new contacts to a main or first user based on the interests of the first user.”
EXAMINER NOTE: Although the limitation has been addressed in view of prior art, the Examiner notes that the particular type of user (i.e. “homeowner” as claimed) is considered non-functional descriptive material, of which does not explicitly alter or impact the steps of the method in such a way as to establish a new and unobvious functional relationship with the method as claimed. As such, the non-functional descriptive material limitation can be given little to no patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.05. The functional limitation is the user. The reference cited teaches this.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included in the method of gathering interests information to find similar users, as taught by Dodge, to rank social connections, as taught by Pic, to ensure the recommended connections have better compatibility (Pic [0006]).
Claim 2
Modified Dodge and Pic discloses the limitations above. Modified Pic further teaches:
contacting, by the server, one or more user-See [0097] “FIG. 3A shows an embodiment of a contact interface 35 accessed from the home graphical user interface of FIG. 1 on the client computer 600.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included in the method of gathering interests information to find similar users, as taught by Dodge, the ability to contact social connections, as taught by Pic, to promote interest sharing as the basis for improved new connections (Pic [0011]).
Claim 3
Modified Dodge and Pic discloses the limitations above. Modified Dodge further teaches:
comprising providing to the first user-See at least “The social discovery application provides a user a rank order list of people most like them. For example, Rob is 94% like them, Jill is 91 % like them, and Rick is 88% like them.”
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross (2016/0027051) in view of (Dodge (2014/0143333) and Pic (2016/0094684).
Claim 7
Gross teaches gathering information about homes and homeowners:
aggregating, by one or more processors, home data regarding a plurality of factors associated with a plurality of homes (Gross [0436]); [0344] See at least “The aggregate combination of such integrated property profiles, taken across all properties, defines a virtual gallery or platform of property descriptors or tags that can be explored and exploited to drive commercial engagement with users.”
aggregating, by one or more processors, user-homeowner data regarding a plurality of factors associated with owners of said plurality of homes (Gross [0249]); See at least “Redemption monitoring logic preferably identifies engagements made by homeowners, records types and dates of product/service purchases, group behaviors, and develops homeowner profiles during a step 2130.”
Gross does not explicitly teach interest connections between users. Dodge teaches:
providing, by one or more processors, questionnaires to user-See at least “The personality test may comprise any type and form of survey, questionnaire or test that evaluates and identifies a personality type, preferences, or traits.”
receiving responses to said questionnaires from said user-See “the social discovery application provides a personality test to the user and generates the interest graph for the user based on results of the personality test and the responses received from the user.”
EXAMINER NOTE: Although the limitation has been addressed in view of prior art, the Examiner notes that the particular type of user (i.e. “homeowner” as claimed) is considered non-functional descriptive material, of which does not explicitly alter or impact the steps of the method in such a way as to establish a new and unobvious functional relationship with the method as claimed. As such, the non-functional descriptive material limitation can be given little to no patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.05. The functional limitation is the user. The reference cited teaches this.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included in the method of aggregating information about homes and homeowners, as taught by Gross, to use questions to gather information about user interests, as taught by Dodge, to improve methods of finding like minded people (Dodge [0004]).
Neither reference teaches identifying the social connections between users. Pic teaches:
determining, by the server, a subset of user-See “here is provided a system for displaying a graphical user interface for presenting and suggesting connections to other users.”
determining, by the server, a ranking within said set of user-See at least “The social discovery application provides a user a rank order list of people most like them. For example, Rob is 94% like them, Jill is 91 % like them, and Rick is 88% like them.”
providing, by the server, a list of user-home owners recommended for social connection to a user-See there is described a method of suggesting new contacts to a main or first user based on the interests of the first user.”
EXAMINER NOTE: Although the limitation has been addressed in view of prior art, the Examiner notes that the particular type of user (i.e. “homeowner” as claimed) is considered non-functional descriptive material, of which does not explicitly alter or impact the steps of the method in such a way as to establish a new and unobvious functional relationship with the method as claimed. As such, the non-functional descriptive material limitation can be given little to no patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.05. The functional limitation is the user. The reference cited teaches this.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included in the method of gathering information on users and using questionnaires to enhance that information, as taught by Gross and Dodge, to establish better social connections, as taught by Pic, to ensure the recommended connections have better compatibility (Pic [0006]).
Claim 8
Modified Gross, Dodge and Pic disclose the limitations above. Modified Pic further teaches:
determining, by the server, a recommended social activity to said first user based upon factors associated with the homes of the user-See [0091] “the graphical user interface is adapted to suggest interests to the user.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included in the method of gathering information on users and using questionnaires to enhance that information, as taught by Gross and Dodge, to establish better social connections, as taught by Pic, to ensure the recommended connections have better compatibility (Pic [0006]).
Claim 9
Modified Gross, Dodge and Pic disclose the limitations above. Modified Dodge further teaches:
receiving a request from said first user-See “The social management functions 232 may comprise any type and form of user interface elements, widgets and functional components ( e.g., executable instructions) to implement various functions such as requesting and accepting a connection between users or otherwise linking between users…”
Claim 10
Modified Gross, Dodge and Pic disclose the limitations above. Modified Dodge further teaches:
receiving a request from said first user-See “The social management functions 232 may comprise any type and form of user interface elements, widgets and functional components ( e.g., executable instructions) to implement various functions such as requesting and accepting a connection between users or otherwise linking between users…”
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dodge (2014/0143333) in view of Pic (2016/0094684) and Ash (2019/0050945).
Claim 4
Modified Dodge and Pic discloses the limitations above. Modified Dodge further teaches:
based upon factors associated with the homes of the user-See at least “The personality test may comprise any type and form of survey, questionnaire or test that evaluates and identifies a personality type, preferences, or traits.”
Neither reference teaches recommending a social activity. Ash teaches:
providing, by the server, a recommended social activity to said first user-See [0053] “The digital assistant accesses the event service and provides the user with a suggestion to attend a baseball game at 7:00 p.m. with his friends Aaron and Derek from his school group.”
EXAMINER NOTE: Although the limitation has been addressed in view of prior art, the Examiner notes that the particular type of user (i.e. “homeowner” as claimed) is considered non-functional descriptive material, of which does not explicitly alter or impact the steps of the method in such a way as to establish a new and unobvious functional relationship with the method as claimed. As such, the non-functional descriptive material limitation can be given little to no patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.05. The functional limitation is the user. The reference cited teaches this.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included in the method of gathering information on users and using questionnaires to enhance that information for social connections, as taught by Gross and Dodge and Pic, to suggest activities based on the connection and user interests, as taught by Ash, to encourage connected users to stay connected and informed (Ash [0001]).
Claim 5
Modified Dodge and Pic discloses the limitations above. Modified Dodge further teaches:
based upon factors associated with the homes of the user-See at least “The personality test may comprise any type and form of survey, questionnaire or test that evaluates and identifies a personality type, preferences, or traits.”
Neither reference teaches recommending a social activity. Ash teaches:
providing, by the server, a recommended social activity to said first user-See [0053] “The digital assistant accesses the event service and provides the user with a suggestion to attend a baseball game at 7:00 p.m. with his friends Aaron and Derek from his school group.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included in the method of gathering information on users and using questionnaires to enhance that information for social connections, as taught by Gross and Dodge and Pic, to suggest activities based on the connection and user interests, as taught by Ash, to encourage connected users to stay connected and informed (Ash [0001]).
Claim 6
Modified Dodge and Pic discloses the limitations above. Neither reference teaches recommending a social activity. Ash teaches:
determining, by the server, service offers related to the recommended social activity based upon said factors; and providing, by the server, a list of service offers related to the recommended social activity to said first user-See “The event service is further configured to identify events and activities by analyzing data acquired from web-based and external resources such as third-party databases and large data sets, and obtain marketing information including discounts, coupons, and other promotions that are pertinent to a given event.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included in the method of gathering information on users and using questionnaires to enhance that information for social connections, as taught by Gross and Dodge and Pic, to suggest activities based on the connection and user interests, as taught by Ash, to encourage connected users to stay connected and informed (Ash [0001]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RASHIDA R SHORTER whose telephone number is (571)272-9345. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday from 9am- 530pm.
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.
/RASHIDA R SHORTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626