DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/01/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to at least independent claim 21, the Applicant argued that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement is invalid and/or that the limitations in questions are fully supported by the Applicant’s original specification on file.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s arguments because of the following reasons:
First, the Applicant directed the Examiner to the Applicant’s specification in pp. [0026], i.e. “[0026] According to a particular aspect of the invention, the tool allows each of its user to generate user-generated content (“user content”) that includes, but is not limited to, a personal profile containing limited personal information about themselves”. (Emphasis Added). The Applicant argued that one of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that based on the phrase “that includes, but is not limited to”, the Applicant’s specification described the at least claimed limitation “non-personal profile user content”.
The Applicant’s specification does not mention and/or specifically described and/or define what is encompassed by the at least claimed limitation “non-personal profile user content”.
The Applicant further directed the Examiner to figures 2, 4, 5, and 6, to the difference between user content that is personal profile and non-personal profile.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s arguments because an image or picture with one person and/or an image or picture with multiple persons does not define or describe what is personal and/or non-personal.
As it is readily known and well understood by anyone of ordinary skill in the art, the content on an image or picture in a profile does not determine if the image is personal or non-personal without any further description in the specification to clearly distinguish what is considered and/or encompassed by a personal profile content versus non-personal profile content.
In conclusion, the Examiner respectfully disagrees that the Applicant’s original specification clearly described the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill to determine what is encompassed by the at least claimed limitation “non-personal profile user content”. Therefore, the claimed limitation encompasses new matter which is not defined, and thus changed the scope of the invention.
Secondly, with regards to the at least limitation in question i.e. “based on the first privacy setting, the first item of non- personal profile user content accessible to the second user if the first user is present at the first geographic location and not accessible to the second user if the first user is not present at the first geographic location”, the Applicant directed the Examiner to pp. [0026] for support of the at least claimed limitations highlighted above.
Pp. [0026]: “Such user content may then be selectively accessible (based on privacy settings set by the user) by other users of the tool via a location-based augmented reality feature of the app, but only when the other users are within the physical vicinity (geographic area) of the user location of the user that created the user content, and/or within the physical vicinity (geographic area) of a pinned location that the user that created the user content has associated with their user content”.
The Applicant argued that simply based on the term “selectively accessible”, the Applicant’s specification supports the at least claimed limitations of “based on the first privacy setting, the first item of non- personal profile user content accessible to the second user if the first user is present at the first geographic location and not accessible to the second user if the first user is not present at the first geographic location”.
Nothing in the cited paragraph described what happens (i.e. content accessibility or not) when or if the first user is not present at the first geographic location. The Examiner respectfully disagree with the Applicant’s arguments and/or statements that one of ordinary in the art would readily understand the scope of the Applicant’s invention and what “selectively accessible” encompasses without any further information or details in the Applicant’s specification.
Thus, the previous rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 21, 31, and 40, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
First, claims 21, 31, and 40, recited at least in part “first item of non-personal profile user content”, the at least limitations were not mentioned and/or clearly described in the original specification on file. Therefore, the claimed limitation encompasses new matter which is not clearly defined, and thus changed the scope of the invention. The Applicant’s specification e.g. “[0026] According to a particular aspect of the invention, the tool allows each of its user to generate user-generated content (“user content”) that includes, but is not limited to, a personal profile containing limited personal information about themselves”.
However, there was nothing mention in the original specification to describe and/or define what is encompassed by the at least claimed limitation “non-personal profile user content”. Therefore, the claimed limitation encompasses new matter which is not defined, and thus changed the scope of the invention.
Secondly, claims 21, 31, and 40, recited at least in part “based on the first privacy setting, the first item of non- personal profile user content accessible to the second user if the first user is present at the first geographic location and not accessible to the second user if the first user is not present at the first geographic location”, the at least limitations were not mentioned and/or clearly described in the original specification on file. Therefore, the claimed limitation encompasses new matter which is not clearly defined, and thus changed the scope of the invention. (Emphasis Added). The Applicant’s original specification does not mention at least that “based on the first privacy setting, the first item of non-personal profile user content… not accessible to the second user if the first user is not present at the first geographic location”. Therefore, the claimed limitation encompasses new matter which is not defined, and thus changed the scope of the invention.
In regards to dependent claims, the same and/or similar rejection is applied by virtue of dependency on the rejected independent claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-40 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art on record Crutchfield (US Publication No. 20160234643) discussed the concept in an augmented reality environment of visually finding and interacting with people in a social media platform, wherein the method comprising: detecting the current location of members of a group, which a user of the mobile device has created or is a member of, if the group members have similar mobile devices and if they have set to permit their visibility when the user or other group members wish to locate them by scanning their surroundings with the camera of their mobile device; and, for each group member detected while the user is scanning user's surroundings, and having a position falling in the direction the mobile device's camera points to at a particular moment, displaying on the mobile device's display a group member representation associated with the group member's position (see fig. 22-26). Those group users/members are preferably shown in scope mode using the augmented reality module (see for example FIG. 32).
Another closest prior art Skarulis (US Publication No. 20150178993) discussed the concept in an augmented reality platform wherein a user may view and select a medium to "hang," i.e., superimpose over a view of reality. The client perspective module may comprise a wizard which walks a user through the steps of "hanging" or "pinning" a medium to a view of reality and when the client device is within a range of an available medium, the client viewer module automatically opens an Augmented Reality viewer. The Augmented Reality viewer can be a map display or a view of reality, with indications of available media superimposed over the map display or view of reality. The indications may include, for example, icons, descriptions, low-resolution images or thumbnails of the media, or any other indication which conveys the availability of an augmented reality opportunity (see fig. 3, fig. 18, fig. 20, and fig. 21).
However, singly and/or in combination the prior art references does not teach the at least indicated portion of the claim of a social media system comprising: a first display configured to allow a first user to attach a first item of non-personal profile user content to a first geographic location such that the first item of non-personal profile user content remains at the first geographic location in the social media system if the first user is not physically present at the first geographic location; a first privacy setting of the first user, the first privacy setting requiring that in order for the first item of non-personal profile user content to be selectively accessible to a second user of the social media system: (a) the second user is within the physical vicinity or area of the first item of non-personal profile user content at the first geographic location and (b) the first user is present at the first geographic location; and a second display configured to allow a second user to access selectively available user content of other users of the social media system in an augmented reality interface, the second display making, based on the first privacy setting, the first item of non-personal profile user content accessible to the second user if the first user is present at the first geographic location and not accessible to the second user if the first user is not present at the first geographic location.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMONIYI OBAYANJU whose telephone number is (571)270-5885. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thur 10:30-7pm.
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, ANTHONY S ADDY can be reached at (571) 272-7795. 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.
/OMONIYI OBAYANJU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645