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 .
This communication is in response to application 18/310,127 filed on 05/01/2023. Claims 1, 5, and 19-20 are amended and hereby entered. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined. No claims are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/09/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding 35 USC 101: The applicant submits that the newly amended limitations in the independent claim overcome the 101 rejections. However, the newly amended limitations simply add to the existing abstract idea. Therefore, the examiner respectfully disagrees and the rejection is maintained.
Regarding 35 USC 102 and 103: The applicant submits the newly amended clarified features are not taught by the existing art. However, the amendments necessitate new grounds of rejection relying on new art, rendering the arguments moot.
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.
Claim 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) with no practical application and without significantly more.
Claims 1-18 are methods, and Claims 19-20 are systems. Thus, each claim on its face is directed to one of the statutory categories of 35 USC 101. However, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea in that the instant application is directed to certain methods of organizing human activity (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). The independent claims (1, 19, and 20) recite a method and systems to match daters using a third-party matchmaker. These claim elements are being interpreted as managing personal behavior or interactions with people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). Matchmaking daters is a form of managing interactions between people. The claims recite an abstract idea consistent with the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping set forth in the MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II).
The instant application fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the instant application merely recites an “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea. The instant application is directed towards a method and systems to implement the identified abstract idea managing personal behavior or relationships between people (i.e. match making daters and the like) in a general-purpose computer environment. The independent claims recite the additional elements “a computer”, “at least one physical processor”, “physical memory”, “a non-transitory computer-readable medium”, and “a computing device”. These claim elements are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a general computer environment. The machines merely act as a modality to implement the abstract idea and are not indicative of integration into a practical application (i.e., the additional elements are simply used as a tool to perform the abstract idea), see MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed in Step 2A Prong Two analysis, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The same analysis applies here in 2B and does not provide an inventive concept.
In regards to the dependent claims
Claims 2-18 do not introduce any new additional abstract ideas or new additional elements and do not impact analysis under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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, 7-9, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hurley (US 20180130139 A1) in view of Maurer (US 20230353651 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, 19, and 20, (substantially similar in scope and language) Hurley teaches:
A computer-implemented method comprising: receiving, from a user who has a dating account with a dating application maintained by a social media platform, user input designating a contact of the user, connected to the user via the social media platform, as a matchmaker for the dating account; [(Para 0004) “In other works, the FDMS provides a system and method whereby a friend, or other third-party user, may find dating matches for a friend, and not for himself or herself. Friends identify matches for friends instead of for themselves.”, (Para 0057) “ a first user desiring for another to find a match for himself/herself may select a particular matchmaker”, (Para 0049) “In one embodiment, a user may approve being randomly matched by another user”, (Para 0058) “For example, a FDMS user may select a close friend as his wingman.”] in response to receiving the user input designating the contact as a matchmaker for the dating account, providing the contact with access to a recommended-matches interface of the dating application, comprising a queue of recommended dating matches selected for the user, [(Para 0032) “the FDMS may maintain, generate, provide, and/or store one or more “dating pools” for a Friend Match User. A dating pool may comprise a set of profiles reflecting one or more particular attribute/characteristic values”] in a matchmaker mode that enables the contact to perform one or more digital matchmaking actions, [(Para 0034) “In one embodiment, profiles from a dating pool may be presented to a user one at a time, and the user may have the option, for a particular presented profile, to reject, accept, link to a friend, archive, make/save notes, update attributes/characteristics, forward to another use for a second opinion, rank, rate, move or copy to another dating pool, or any other operation that may be known in the art.”]
However, Hurley does not teach but Maurer does teach:
wherein the one or more digital matchmaking actions comprise submitting, by the contact, a conditional message to a chat thread between the user and a recommended dating match on behalf of the user, [(Para 0107) “At step 518, content for the message may be generated. In some embodiments, message content may include a draft message for the user to send to initiate the conversation…”] wherein the conditional message is configured to be sent to the recommended dating match upon approval form the user [(Para 0107) “In some embodiments, the draft content must be accepted by the user after the user accepts the suggestion.]
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of using a matchmaker (Hurley) with draft message capabilities (Mauer). One of ordinary skill would have recognized the benefits of allowing the matchmaker to draft conditional messages that can be sent upon approval by the user, in order to assist the user in dating. Applying the known technique of drafting conditional messages for approval in matchmaking would have yielded predictable results.
Regarding Claim 2, Hurley in view of Maurer teaches the limitations set forth above, Hurley further teaches:
wherein the one or more digital matchmaker actions comprise conditionally accepting or rejecting a recommended dating match provided within the queue of recommended dating matches. [(Para 0034) “profiles from a dating pool may be presented to a user one at a time, and the user may have the option, for a particular presented profile, to reject, accept”]
Regarding Claim 3, Hurley in view of Maurer teaches the limitations set forth above, Hurley further teaches:
wherein the one or more digital matchmaker actions comprise digitally annotating a profile of a recommended dating match provided within the queue of recommended dating matches. [(Para 0034) “In one embodiment, profiles from a dating pool may be presented to a user one at a time, and the user may have the option, for a particular presented profile, to … make/save notes”]
Regarding Claim 7, Hurley in view of Maurer teaches the limitations set forth above, Hurley further teaches:
wherein: the method further comprises receiving, from the user, additional user input assigning a designated matchmaker role to the contact; [(Para 0057) “In one embodiment, a first user desiring for another to find a match for himself/herself may select a particular matchmaker”] the designated matchmaker role corresponds to one or more role-specific digital matchmaking actions; and the one or more digital matchmaking actions enabled in the matchmaker mode correspond to the role-specific digital matchmaking actions. [(Para 0011) “In one embodiment, a first user may request for a particular user to act a Search User for the first user. A first user may also request that another user, e.g., a search user, identify a match for a particular date, date and time, or date, time, and event.”]
Regarding Claim 8, Hurley in view of Maurer teaches the limitations set forth above, Hurley further teaches:
wherein the designated matchmaker role comprises at least one of: a selection role that enables a matchmaker to conditionally accept or reject a recommended dating match for the user; or a profile editor role that enables a matchmaker to conditionally edit a dating profile of the user maintained by the dating application. [(Para 0034) “In one embodiment, profiles from a dating pool may be presented to a user one at a time, and the user may have the option, for a particular presented profile, to reject, accept…”]
Regarding Claim 9, Hurley in view of Maurer teaches the limitations set forth above, Hurley further teaches:
wherein: at the time the user input, designating the contact as a matchmaker, is received, the contact has an account with the social media platform but does not have an account with the dating application; and the method further comprises, in response to receiving the user input designating the contact as a matchmaker for the dating account, creating a matchmaker account for the contact with the dating application. [(Para 0029) “In one embodiment, a user may select to have his or her FDMS account automatically created, in full or in part, by mining information from Facebook®, other social media account(s), or from any other repository that may have information relating to an individual's FDMS profile and/or associated attributes.”]
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hurley (US 20180130139 A1) in view of Maurer (US 20230353651 A1) in further view of Herbst (US 20170300935 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Hurley in view of Maurer teaches the limitations set forth above, Hurley further teaches:
wherein the one or more digital matchmaker actions comprise conditionally submitting a message [(Para 0047) “FDMS may provide multiple means for its users to communicate, either anonymously, partially anonymously, or otherwise, through means such as smart phone apps, email, in-app messaging, text message”]
While Hurley in view of Mauer teach conditionally submitting a message, it does not explicitly teach submitting the message to a chat thread including a match:
to a chat thread corresponding to a recommended dating match provided within the queue of recommended dating matches.
However, Herbst teaches:
to a chat thread corresponding to a recommended dating match provided within the queue of recommended dating matches. [(Para 0101) “In each of these instances, the profile may be displayed along with tools to interact with the profile, such as a rating bar to rate a profile, or a chat button to converse with a Match.”, (Figure 8)]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of messaging taught by Hurley in view of Maurer, with the a chat thread including a match. It is well within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill to use the messaging capabilities taught by Hurley to submit the message to a chat thread including the match. This yields predictable results in the chat capabilities of matchmakers and daters.
Regarding Claim 5, Hurley in view of Maurer teaches the limitations set forth above.
While Hurley in view of Maurer teaches a matchmaker method, it does not explicitly teach a primary dater mode.
further comprising: providing the recommended-matches interface to the user in a primary-dater mode; presenting, within the recommended-matches interface provided to the user in the primary-dater mode, at least one of: a conditional acceptance or rejection selected, by the contact, for a recommended dating match; one or more annotations applied, by the contact, to a recommended dating match; or the chat thread, comprising one or more messages conditionally submitted by the contact, corresponding to a recommended dating match.
However, Herbst teaches:
further comprising: providing the recommended-matches interface to the user in a primary-dater mode; presenting, within the recommended-matches interface provided to the user in the primary-dater mode, at least one of: a conditional acceptance or rejection selected, by the contact, for a recommended dating match; one or more annotations applied, by the contact, to a recommended dating match; or the chat thread, comprising one or more messages conditionally submitted by the contact, corresponding to a recommended dating match. [(Figure 7), (Para 0142) “As stated above, the dater currently selected 715, Dominic, is the user of the evaluation page 700 in this example. Dominic is evaluating profiles for himself… In addition to a positive evaluation, one Friend also left a written evaluation (comment) 760 to express his enthusiasm for the pairing of Jennifer and Dominic.”]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the match making method taught by Hurley in view of Maurer with the primary dater mode taught by Herbst. It is well within the capabilities for one of ordinary skill to include both a match making mode and primary dating mode in an application that allows for match functions by user. Applying the known technique of a primary dating mode would have yielded predictable results.
Regarding Claim 6, Hurley in view of Maurer teach the limitations set forth above.
While Hurley in view of Maurer teach a matchmaker method, it does not explicitly teach creating a matchmaker-accepted digest of recommended matches.
further comprising creating, for the user, a digital matchmaker-accepted digest comprising recommended dating matches that have been accepted by one or more contacts of the user who have been designated as matchmakers.
However, Herbst teaches:
further comprising creating, for the user, a digital matchmaker-accepted digest comprising recommended dating matches that have been accepted by one or more contacts of the user who have been designated as matchmakers. [(Para 0104) “The Client Program may alert the user of a new Match with a tone, vibration, or visual cue on the Client Interface 550. In the preferred embodiment, the Client Interface 550 contains a page that lists a synopsis button for each Match.”]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of creating a matchmaker-accepted digest taught by Herbst, with the matchmaking method of Hurley in view of Maurer. It is well within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill to create a digest comprising recommended matches in a matchmaker application. The invention is merely a combination of old elements and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately yielding predictable results.
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hurley (US 20180130139 A1) in view of Maurer (US 20230353651 A1) in view of Herbst (US 20170300935 A1) in further view of Johnson (WO 2018/201108 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Hurley in view of Maurer teaches the limitations of claim 1, Hurley further teaches:
in which a recommended match is presented within a profile card [(Figure 3)]; a first element, configured to accept the recommended dating match when selected via a first type of user input, and a second element, configured to reject the recommended dating match when selected via the first type of user input; [(Para 0034) “In one embodiment, profiles from a dating pool may be presented to a user one at a time, and the user may have the option, for a particular presented profile, to reject, accept,”]
While Hurley in view of Maurer teaches accepting and rejecting in the matchmaking method, it does not teach a primary dater mode or vibe check process.
further comprising: providing the recommended-matches interface to the user in a primary-dater mode
configuring at least one of the first or second element to trigger a vibe check process when selected via a second type of user input, wherein the vibe check process comprises transmitting the profile card to one or more contacts selected by the user for digital feedback.
and wherein the first type of input is a different type of input than the second type of input.
However, Herbst teaches:
further comprising: providing the recommended-matches interface to the user in a primary-dater mode [(Figure 7), (Para 0142) “As stated above, the dater currently selected 715, Dominic, is the user of the evaluation page 700 in this example. Dominic is evaluating profiles for himself… In addition to a positive evaluation, one Friend also left a written evaluation (comment) 760 to express his enthusiasm for the pairing of Jennifer and Dominic.”]; configuring at least one of the first or second element to trigger a vibe check process when selected via a second type of user input, wherein the vibe check process comprises transmitting the profile card to one or more contacts selected by the user for digital feedback. [(Figure 8); shows example feedback based on a sent profile card]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the matchmaking method taught by Hurley in view of Maurer, with the use of a primary dater mode and vibe check methods taught by Herbst. It is well within the capabilities for one of ordinary skill to include both a match making mode and primary dating mode in an application that allows match functions by user. Additionally, it is well within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill to use the vibe check process in the matchmaking method. The invention is merely a combination of old elements and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately yielding predictable results.
While the combination of Hurley, Maurer and Herbst teach a matchmaking method and vibe check, it does not explicitly teach two different types of haptic input:
and wherein the first type of input is a different type of input than the second type of input.
However, Johnson teaches:
and wherein the first type of input is a different type of input than the second type of input. [(Para 0030) “Thus, for example, a tap-and-hold haptic input at a target location on the map in some embodiments triggers a search for social media items having geo-tag information within a certain radius of the target location and having respective timestamps falling within the preceding 12 hours, while a press-and-hold input (in which selection of the target location is held for longer than a threshold duration) triggers…]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the matchmaking method taught by Hurley, Mauer, and Herbst, with the method of using different inputs to perform various actions. The invention is merely a combination of old elements and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately Assigning different input types to different actions would yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 12, The combination of Hurley, Mauer, Herbst, and Johnson teach the limitations of claim 11.
While Hurley in view of Maurer teaches a matchmaking method it does not teach transmitting a profile card:
wherein transmitting the profile card to the one or more contacts comprises transmitting the profile card to the contact designated as a
However, Herbst teaches:
wherein transmitting the profile card to the one or more contacts comprises transmitting the profile card to the contact designated as a matchmaker. [(Figure 8); Shows sent profile to a matchmaker]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the matchmaking method of Hurley and Maurer with the ability to transmit profile cards taught by Herbst. It is well within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill include a profile card sending feature in the matchmaking application. The invention is merely a combination of old elements and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately yielding predictable results.
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Hurley, Maurer, Herbst, and Johnson teach the limitations of claim 11.
While the combination of Hurley, Maurer, and Herbst teach a matchmaking method that transmits profile cards, they do not explicitly teach transmitting the profile card as an ephemeral story:
wherein transmitting the profile card to the one or more contacts comprises automatically generating a private ephemeral video based on the profile card, and transmitting the private ephemeral video
However, Johnson teaches:
wherein transmitting the profile card to the one or more contacts comprises automatically generating a private ephemeral video based on the profile card, and transmitting the private ephemeral video. [(Para 0026) “As will be described in greater detail below, ephemeral social media content comprises social media items that are available for viewing via the social media application for only a limited period. For example, an ephemeral social media item or message (also referred to herein as a "snap") submitted by a user to the social media application may be available for viewing by other users… Such ephemeral social media items (also referred to herein as ephemeral messages) typically comprise photographic or video content”, (Para 0058) “a collection may also constitute a "Live Story," which is a collection of content from multiple users that is created manually, automatically, or using a combination of manual and automatic techniques”, (Para 0057) “such messages and stories/galleries are understood to be for private consumption,”]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the matchmaking method that uses and transmits profile cards taught by Hurley, Maurer, and Herbst, with the method of generating and transmitting ephemeral videos. It is well within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill to generate and transmit the profile card as an ephemeral video. For example, Johnson states, “Such operations include transmitting data to, receiving data from, and processing data generated by the social media client application 104. This data may include message content, client device information, geolocation information, media annotations and overlays, message content persistence conditions, social network information, and live event information, as examples.” This shows Johnson’s ability to generate, process, and transmit data. The invention is merely a combination of old elements and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately yielding predictable results.
Regarding Claim 14, The combination of Hurley, Maurer, Herbst, and Johnson teach the limitations of claim 11, Hurley further teaches:
wherein: transmitting the profile card to the one or more contacts comprises enabling the one or more contacts to vote on the profile card; and the method further comprises presenting the voting results to the user. [(Para 0007) “In one embodiment, a match may be generated only if approved by multiple “friends,” or if confirmed through a voting system or other system that combines votes or inputs from multiple users.”]
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hurley (US 20180130139 A1) in view of Maurer (US 20230353651 A1) in further view of Schneider (US 20160212230 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Hurley in view of Maurer teaches the limitations of claim 9.
While Hurley in view of Maurer teaches a matchmaking method and account, it does not teach notification and invite method:
wherein creating the matchmaker account comprises: presenting a notification to the contact indicating that the contact has been designated as a matchmaker for the user’s dating account; digitally inviting the contact to create the matchmaker account with the dating application;
and creating the matchmaker account in response to receiving user input from the contact selecting to create the matchmaker account.
However, Schneider teaches:
wherein creating the matchmaker account comprises: presenting a notification to the contact indicating that the contact has been designated as a matchmaker for the user’s dating account; digitally inviting the contact to create the matchmaker account with the dating application; [(Para 0017) “The subject mechanism aims to give a message recipient more context around where the message came from, who is sending it, and how they are connected to the sender”, (Para 0019) “These components further include an invitation generation component configured to generate an invitation that invites the second user to connect with the first user at the first network source”] and creating the matchmaker account in response to receiving user input from the contact selecting to create the matchmaker account. [(Para 0033) “For instance, many websites and applications allow users to invite their friends or acquaintances to become new members/users of the website or application (e.g., by downloading the application, registering with the website or application, setting up an account, setting up a profile, etc.)”]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an invitation method taught by Schneider with the matchmaking application taught by Hurley in view of Maurer. The invention is merely a combination of old elements and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately, yielding predictable results.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hurley (US 20180130139 A1) in view of Maurer (US 20230353651 A1) in further view of Yang (US 11424945 B1)
Regarding Claim 15, Hurley in view of Maurer teach the limitations of claim 1, Hurley further teaches:
an interface of the user’s dating account. [(Para 0030) “When searching for matches for a particular friend, a Search User may use the FDMS interface to identify the friend, referred to herein as a Friend Match User. In some embodiments, a Search User may also identify an FDMS interface that is not necessarily a friend, but which may be simply another FDMS user”]
While Hurley in view of Maurer teaches a user dating account interface, it does not explicitly teach a shared streaming space for users to co-view:
further comprising creating a shared streaming space that enables the user and one or more additional users to co-view
However, Yang teaches:
further comprising creating a shared streaming space that enables the user and one or more additional users to co-view [(Figure 2) (Column 5, Lines 5-7) “According to some embodiments, VCS 112 causes video data for the session to be streamed, via network 120, to each of participating client devices”]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the matchmaking method taught by Hurley and Maurer with a streaming method taught by Yang. It is well within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill to stream the interface of a dating account. The invention is merely a combination of old elements and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately yielding predictable results.
Regarding Claim 16, The combination of Hurley, Maurer, and Yang teach the limitations of claim 15.
While Hurley in view of Maurer teaches a matchmaking method, it does not explicitly teach passing navigational control to a user in a streaming space:
wherein the shared streaming space: provides the user with navigational control by default; enables the user to pass the navigational control to another user participating in the shared streaming space;
and visually indicates which user currently has navigational control by presenting, as a dynamic cursor element within the shared streaming space, a profile image corresponding to the user who has navigational control.
However, Yang teaches:
wherein the shared streaming space: provides the user with navigational control by default; enables the user to pass the navigational control to another user participating in the shared streaming space; [(Column 24, Lines 44-47) “A session master of a particular session may grant or revoke, to other participants in the session, permission to perform actions in a session such as adding annotations, controlling video playback”] and visually indicates which user currently has navigational control by presenting, as a dynamic cursor element within the shared streaming space, a profile image corresponding to the user who has navigational control. [(Figure 2)]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the matchmaking method taught by Hurley and Maurer with a streaming method taught by Yang. It is well within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill to stream an interface and pass navigational control of the stream. The invention is merely a combination of old elements and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately yielding predictable results
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hurley (US 20180130139 A1) in view of Maurer (US 20230353651 A1) in view of Yang (US 11424945 B1) in further view of Johnson (WO 2018/201108 A1).
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Hurley, Maurer, and Yang teach the limitations of claim 15
While Hurley and Maurer teaches a matchmaking method, it does not explicitly teach a reaction wheel of digital reactions to react with in a streaming space, or a long press input method:
Presenting, …, a reaction wheel comprising a plurality of digital reactions that may be selected by the user who applied the long-press; receiving, from the user who applied the long-press, a selection of a digital reaction from the reaction wheel;
and applying, to a view of the shared streaming space configured for one or more of the other users participating in the shared streaming space, a digital reaction corresponding to the selected reaction.
receiving, from a user participating in the shared streaming space, a long-press applied to a particular spatial location within the interface of the user’s dating account; and in response to receiving the long-press, presenting, to a view of the interface configured for the user who applied the long-press,…
However, Yang teaches:
presenting, …, a reaction wheel comprising a plurality of digital reactions that may be selected by the user who applied the long-press; receiving, from the user who applied the long-press, a selection of a digital reaction from the reaction wheel; [(Figure 10), (Column 12, Lines 58-60) “depicts an emoji/sticker/shape control bar 1006 with controls for applying emojis, shapes, and/or stickers to the current frame”, (Column 6, Lines 1-4) “Annotations may further be represented with user identifiers and/or an indication of the type of annotation (such as “text”, “freehand drawing”, “sticker”, “shape”, “emoji”, etc.)”] and applying, to a view of the shared streaming space configured for one or more of the other users participating in the shared streaming space, a digital reaction corresponding to the selected reaction. [(Figure 10)]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the matchmaking method taught by Hurley and Maurer, with a streaming method with reactions taught by Yang. It is well within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill to stream an interface with digital reactions on the stream. The invention is merely a combination of old elements and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately yielding predictable results.
While the combination of Hurley, Maurer, and Yang teach the limitations set forth above, of which include a matchmaking application and reactions while streaming, they do not explicitly teach the use of a long press to differentiate an input associated with a different result:
receiving, from a user participating in the shared streaming space, a long-press applied to a particular spatial location within the interface of the user’s dating account; and in response to receiving the long-press, presenting, to a view of the interface configured for the user who applied the long-press, …
However, Johnson teaches:
receiving, from a user participating in the shared streaming space, a long-press applied to a particular spatial location within the interface of the user’s dating account; and in response to receiving the long-press, presenting, to a view of the interface configured for the user who applied the long-press, [(Para 0204) “a tap input triggers a 6 hour search period, while a press-and-hold input (e.g., held for longer than 0.5 seconds) invariably triggers a search period of 12 hours.”]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the matchmaking and streaming method taught by the combination of Hurley, Maurer, and Yang, with the long-press input method taught by Johnson. It is well within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill to include a variable input method to trigger outputs. Using the input long-press taught by Johnson, to output reaction options taught by Hurley, Maurer and Yang, would yield predictable results. The invention is merely a combination of old elements and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately yielding predictable results.
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Hurley, Maurer, and Yang teach the limitations of claim 15, Hurley further teaches:
a profile card of a particular recommended match [(Figure 3)]
While Hurley in view of Maurer teaches a matchmaking method with profile cards, it does not explicitly teach capturing snapshots of a streaming space and generating a private story to show users:
automatically capturing a plurality of snapshots of the shared streaming space while…is being viewed via the shared streaming space;
automatically generating a private story comprising the automatically captured snapshots;
and presenting the private story to one or more of the users participating in the shared streaming space.
However, Yang teaches:
automatically capturing a plurality of snapshots of the shared streaming space while…is being viewed via the shared streaming space; [(Column 17, Lines 57-58) “Based on session data 142, the recorded video collaboration session may be reviewed after the session is complete.”]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the matchmaking method taught by Hurley and Maurer, with the stream capture capabilities taught by Yang. It is well within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill to capture profile cards on stream with the recording capabilities of the method taught by Yang. The invention is merely a combination of old elements and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately yielding predictable results.
While the combination of Hurley, Maurer, and Yang teach the limitations set forth above, of which include capturing snapshots of the streamed matchmaking method, they do not explicitly teach generating a story form the snapshots and presenting a private story:
automatically generating a private story comprising the automatically captured snapshots;
and presenting the private story to one or more of the users participating in the shared streaming space
However, Johnson teaches:
automatically generating a private story comprising the automatically captured snapshots; [(Para 0058) “As mentioned, a collection may also constitute a "Live Story," which is a collection of content from multiple users that is created manually, automatically, or using a combination of manual and automatic techniques”] and presenting the private story to one or more of the users participating in the shared streaming space. [(Para 0057) “In the context of this description, such messages and stories/galleries are understood to be for private consumption, being limited for viewing via the social media application to particular users”]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the matchmaking and streaming method taught by Hurley, Maurer and Yang, with the shareable story creation taught by Johnson. It is well within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill to use the content recorded in the stream to create a presentable story taught by Johnson. The invention is merely a combination of old elements and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately, yielding predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Benjamin Truong, whose telephone number is 703-756-5883. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 9 am to 5 pm (EST)
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, Nathan Uber SPE can be reached on 571-270-3923. 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.
/B.L.T./
Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/NATHAN C UBER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626