DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-5, 7, 8, and 10-29 are currently pending. Claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14-18, 21, 22, 24-26, 28, and 29 were amended in the reply filed November 5, 2025. Claims 6 and 9 were cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Objections:
Applicant's amendments overcome the objections made to the claims and they are withdrawn.
112(b):
Applicant's amendments overcome the rejection made under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) to the claims and it is withdrawn.
101:
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejection made under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the amended independent claims recite “multiple filtering tools, at mobile filtering locations, remote from other end users, with customizable user context filtering (user interaction purpose)” which is analogous to the filtering in Bascom and provides an inventive concept (Remarks p. 12). Examiner respectfully disagrees. In Bascom, “the Federal Circuit concluded that the district court erred by failing to recognize that when combined, an inventive concept may be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of the additional elements, i.e., the installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end-users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user. 827 F.3d at 1350, 119 USPQ2d at 1242” (see MPEP 2106.05(I)(B)). Unlike Bascom, Applicant’s claims do not recite a “non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of the additional elements”. The additional elements recited by Applicant’s claims are generic computers used in their ordinary capacity in a generic arrangement (see e.g. the generic computer configurations in Figs. 1 and 2 of Applicant’s specification – because no specific “filtering tools” are mentioned, Examiner assumes that “multiple filtering tools” refers to computing devices such as the “client computer”, “remote server”, “user device”, and/or “server”). Furthermore, the “multiple filtering tools” recited by Applicant’s claims do not appear to have any specific location (including the requirement that they be “remote”). However, even if the “filtering tools” are “remote from the end-users”, this is still a generic and conventional arrangement. The conclusion is the same whether the additional elements are considered individually or in combination as a whole.
The “filtering” recited in Applicant’s claims refers to determining that a person with shared interest/purpose is close by. This is part of the abstract idea. The “filtering” is performed on generic computer devices in a conventional/generic arrangement. As such, the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and do not amount to significantly more” than the judicial exception. Accordingly, the rejection is maintained.
103:
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejections made under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-5, 7, 8, and 10-29 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 28, and 29 recite, “by filtering a set other users based on each of the other users being within a proximity radius of the user” (emphasis added). This limitation contains a typographical error and should read, “by filtering a set of other users based on each of the other users being within a proximity radius of the user” (emphasis added). Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1, 28, and 29 further recite, “wherein the control signal and the another control signal are configured to delay both a displaying of an image of another user from among the subset of other users and an enabling of private communication between the user device of the user and the user device of the another user” (emphasis added). The claims previously recite that the control signal displays images and the another control signal enables communication. However, the wording of the limitation above (particularly “are configured to delay both”) does not make this distinction. For the purposes of examination, the claims are interpreted to read, “wherein the control signal and the another control signal are configured, respectively, to delay a displaying of an image of another user from among the subset of other users and an enabling of private communication between the user device of the user and the user device of the another user” (emphasis added). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 recites, “informing the user, that the user and at least one person other user in the subset of other users share with a specified frequency, at least part of a path in their respective travels” (emphasis added). This limitation contains a typographical error and should read, “informing the user, that the user and at least one other user in the subset of other users share with a specified frequency, at least part of a path in their respective travels” (emphasis added). Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-5, 7, 8, and 10-27 are objected to by virtue of dependency on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(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 1-5, 7-8, and 10-29 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.
Claims 1, 28, and 29 recite, " receiving a user selected interaction purpose that is selected by a user from among dating, friendship, and business relating to a subscription service" (emphasis added). This limitation is not supported by the specification. Applicant states that support for the amendments can be found “throughout the instant Application” (Remarks p. 9). Applicant's specification teaches: receiving a user selected interaction purpose that is business [0021, 0056]; public cloud can provide a subscription service for people interaction to a plurality of users [0038]; and that users can sign up for a subscription service for people interaction [0053]. However, it does not contain any description that would convey to a person skilled in the relevant art that the user can select an interaction purpose for business relating to a subscription service. There are no other sections of Applicant's specification that teach the amended limitations. Therefore, claims 1, 28, and 29 fail to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 1, 28, and 29 further recite, "wherein the control signal and the another control signal are configured to delay both a displaying of an image of another user from among the subset of other users and an enabling of private communication between the user device of the user and the user device of the another user" (emphasis added). This limitation is not supported by the specification. Applicant states that support for the amendments can be found “throughout the instant Application” (Remarks p. 9). Applicant's specification teaches: using computing resources in a private cloud [0040]; and that communication is enabled selectively for a particular person in the subset of people [0081]. However, it does not contain any description that would convey to a person skilled in the relevant art that the communications enabled by the another control signal are private. Examiner notes that, selectively enabling communications is not the same as enabling private communications. There are no other sections of Applicant's specification that teach the amended limitations. Therefore, claims 1, 28, and 29 fail to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim 8 further recites, " and an enabling of the private communication with the subset of people other users" (emphasis added). This limitation is not supported by the specification. Applicant states that support for the amendments can be found “throughout the instant Application” (Remarks p. 9). Applicant's specification teaches: using computing resources in a private cloud [0040]; and that communication is enabled selectively for a particular person in the subset of people [0081]. However, it does not contain any description that would convey to a person skilled in the relevant art that the communications enabled are private. Examiner notes that, selectively enabling communications is not the same as enabling private communications. There are no other sections of Applicant's specification that teach the amended limitations. Therefore, claim 8 fails to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 2-5, 7, 8, and 10-27 are rejected by virtue of dependency on claim 1.
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 1-5, 7, 8, and 10-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Independent Claims
MPEP 2106 Step 2A- Prong 1:
Independent claims 1, 28, and 29 recite, receiving a user selected interaction purpose that is selected by a user from among dating, friendship, and business relating to a subscription service;
receiving a trajectory of a user;
receiving trajectories of other users;
determining, based on the trajectory of the user and the trajectories of the other user[s], a subset of other users that are proximate to the user by filtering a set other users based on each of the other users being within a proximity radius of the user, having at least one user selected interaction purpose in common with the user and having a respective trajectory that cross paths with the user;
display an image of each of the subset of people;
and enable communication between the user and the subset of other users
delay both a displaying of an image of another user from among the subset of other users and an enabling of private communication between the user and the another user, until the user is outside of a safety radius from the another user.
The limitations above are processes that under broadest reasonable interpretation cover “certain methods of organizing human activity” (including managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people). Specifically, matching people based on path trajectories is managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Examiner particularly notes that the invention is directed towards enabling dating, friendship, and business interactions between people.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A- Prong 2:
The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1, 28, and 29 as a whole amount to: merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, or “apply it”.
Independent claims 1, 28, and 29 recite the following additional elements to perform the above recited steps: user devices with GPS systems (claims 1, 28, and 29), control signals (claims 1, 28, and 29), a display device (claims 1, 28, and 29), a communication device (claims 1, 28, and 29), one or more non-transitory computer-readable media (claim 28), one or more processors (claim 28), an application (claims 28 and 29), and a server (claim 29).These additional elements are generic computer components performing generic computer functions at a high level of generality, and are recited at a high level of generality. These additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Individually and as a whole, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application because the claims do not: improve the functioning of the computer itself or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; add meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment to transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter; amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer.
MPEP 2106 Step 2B:
Independent claims 1, 28, and 29 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements are generic computer components performing generic computer functions at a high level of generality and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Alone or in combination, the additional elements do not contribute significantly more than the judicial exception and as a result, the claims are ineligible.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2-5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13-18, and 19-27, recite additional details that merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations without reciting any additional elements. They are therefore, ineligible for the reasons as discussed above with respect to independent claims 1, 28, and 29. The additional elements in claims 12 and 19 are discussed below.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A- Prong 2:
Dependent claim 12 recites the additional elements of a virtual reality environment, an augmented reality environment, and a mixed reality environment. These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality such that when viewed as a whole, the additional element does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., interactions in a partial or fully virtual environment) (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Dependent claim 19 recites the additional elements of a user interface. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality such that when viewed as a whole, the additional element amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
MPEP 2106 Step 2B:
With respect to claim 12, as discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element amounts to no more than: generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., (i) generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional elements of a virtual reality environment, an augmented reality environment, and a mixed reality environment, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, claim 12 is also ineligible.
With respect to claim 19, as discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element amounts to no more than: a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., applying the exception using a generic computer component, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional element of a user interface, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, claim 19 is also 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 11-17, 20, 21, 23, and 26-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0231858 to Bourne (Bourne) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0066789 to Keith (Keith) and in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0287146 to El Daher (El Daher).
As to claims 1, 28, and 29, Bourne teaches:
(claim 28) computer program product configured to enable people interaction on a user device, the computer program product comprising one or more non-transitory computer-readable media, having instructions stored thereon that when executed by one or more processors cause the one or more processors, individually or in combination, to perform a method comprising (“… Typically, these components are implemented in software (as a set of processor-executable computer instructions, associated data structures, and the like) …” and “… Such a computer program may be stored in a computer readable storage medium, such as, but is not limited to, any type of disk including an optical disk, a CD-ROM, and a magnetic-optical disk, a read-only memory (ROM), a random access memory (RAM), a magnetic or optical card, or any type of media suitable for storing electronic instructions, and each coupled to a computer system bus” [0019 and 0061]):
(claim 29) a system for people interaction, comprising: a server configured to store profile information for a plurality of users; and an application exectuable on a user device and configured to (“… The server 102 also includes a database (e.g. MySQL) 105 for storing location information, as well as a user profile database 107 for storing user preference data …” and “FIG. 6 illustrates a further example showing three (3) display screens that are available in a mobile device application that implements the client-side of the future location functionality ...” [0027-0028 and 0048]):
receiving a user selected interaction purpose that is selected by a user from among (“… According to the user's relationship with people in their social graph, the user chooses people whose plans they wish to subscribe to; and organize people who follow the user's plans into groups …” and “… For instance, using an input menu, the user may select whether the contact is a close friend, an acquaintance or a business contact …” [0031 and 0035]);
receiving a trajectory of a user device of a user determined from Global Positioning System (GPS) data output from a GPS system of the user device (“… The integration layer 104 may comprise part of the server 102 if the service provider has access to the location and traffic data (as will be described below) …” and “… The mobile device actual location is provided using GPS, A-GPS, or some other data service, which obtains the device location is a known manner …” and “The Path Crossing Engine assimilates the future location paths for a user and compares the future location paths to that of their friends, social graph or wider groups of like minded people …” [0018 and 0028 and 0034]);
receiving trajectories of other user devices of other users determined from GPS data output from GPS systems of the other user devices (“… The integration layer 104 may comprise part of the server 102 if the service provider has access to the location and traffic data (as will be described below) …” and “… The mobile device actual location is provided using GPS, A-GPS, or some other data service, which obtains the device location is a known manner …” and “The Path Crossing Engine assimilates the future location paths for a user and compares the future location paths to that of their friends, social graph or wider groups of like minded people …” [0018 and 0028 and 0034] Examiner notes that the “mobile device client” taught by Bourne is used both by a user and other users);
determining, based on the trajectory of the user device and the trajectories of the other user devices, a subset of other users that are proximate to the user by filtering a set other users based on each of the other users being within a proximity radius of the user having at least one user selected interaction purpose in common with the user, and having a respective trajectory that crosses paths with the user (“… The Path Crossing Engine assimilates the future location paths for a user and compares the future location paths to that of their friends, social graph or wider groups of like minded people …” [0032-0036]);
outputting a control signal to a display device of the user device to display an image of each of the subset of other users (“In the FIG. 2 example, and on the first leg of the trip, from Logan airport to Malden, the user's path is crossed by Jeremy, who the user has identified as a close friend …” and “… The middle portion of the figure illustrates the user's schedule in an agenda format. In this agenda format, events are shared with friends and profile pictures (of the friends) subscribing to the event are shown below the subject line …” [0036 and 0048] Examiner notes that Fig. 2 shows images of the subset of people);
and outputting another control signal to a communication device of the user device to enable communication between the user device of the user and the user devices of the subset of other users (“… The user has the opportunity to send a message and arrange to meet in person …” [0036] Examiner notes that Fig. 2 shows a “SEND MESSAGE” option, which enables communication).
Bourne does not teach, receiving a user selected interaction purpose that is selected by a user from among dating. However, Keith teaches, receiving a user selected interaction purpose that is selected by a user from among dating ("... For instance, a female user may specify that she wants to date men [0042-0044]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, receiving a user selected interaction purpose that is selected by a user from among dating, as taught by Keith with the people matching system and method of Bourne. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Keith that doing so would provide improvement in automated identifications of persons of potential interest to each other, particularly persons who are not already known to each other [0003].
Bourne in view of Keith does not teach, wherein the control signal and the another control signal are configured to delay both a displaying of an image of another user from among the subset of other users and an enabling of private communication between the user device of the user and the user device of the another user, until the user device of the user is outside of a safety radius from the user device of the another user. However, El Daher teaches, wherein the control signal and the another control signal are configured to delay both a displaying of an image of another user from among the subset of other users and an enabling of private communication between the user device of the user and the user device of the another user, until the user device of the user is outside of a safety radius from the user device of the another user (“User A is then taken to step 102 in the website, where he can specify to the website the kind of feedback about his profile that he is looking for. In this context, kinds of feedback means what part of his profile does user A want reviewed, and what he is hoping to achieve. Examples of those kinds of feedback are: photo feedback …” and “For example, on an online dating site T, if user A is male, he may request anonymous feedback from women on T and user A would never know who the women who reviewed him were” and “In another embodiment, the review may be subject to a minimum distance requirement—that means that for preserving personal information even further, a user may not be allowed to review another user's profile unless they are more than a certain distance away …” [0023-0024 and 0043 and 0049] Examiner notes that the profile reviewed in El Daher includes a photo (i.e., image of another user) and anonymous feedback (i.e., private communication)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, wherein the control signal and the another control signal are configured to delay both a displaying of an image of another user from among the subset of other users and an enabling of private communication between the user device of the user and the user device of the another user, until the user device of the user is outside of a safety radius from the user device of the another user, as taught by El Daher with the people matching system and method of Bourne. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of El Daher that doing so would be for safety and privacy reasons [0049].
As to claim 2, Bourne in view of Keith and in further view of El Daher teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Bourne further teaches, further comprising outputting a control signal to initiate the display device to display, along with the image of each of the subset of other users, a name (“… The middle portion of the figure illustrates the user's schedule in an agenda format. In this agenda format, events are shared with friends and profile pictures (of the friends) subscribing to the event are shown below the subject line …” [0046-0048] Examiner notes that Figs. 2 and 6 show an image and name of each person).
Bourne does not teach, and at least one of: an age; a place of residence; a phone number; an email address; an interest; an education facility; an education degree; astrological sign; a company name; an occupation; or a hiring status. However, Keith teaches, and at least one of: an age; a place of residence; a phone number; an email address; an interest; an education facility; an education degree; astrological sign; a company name; an occupation; or a hiring status (“At step 255, affinity server 60 sends notices of near-match users to each other, typically via email, and in some embodiments, by activating a "new near match" icon on the display of the mobile devices of the near-match users …” and “Turning to the first use case, Table 2 provides profiles of characteristics of the four users, user 10, user 11, user 12, user 13, while Table 3 provides desired characteristics that each of the users has specified for their affinity matches, along with a threshold for matching …” [0076-0080 and 0096-0097]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, and at least one of: an age; a place of residence; a phone number; an email address; an interest; an education facility; an education degree; astrological sign; a company name; an occupation; and a hiring status, as taught by Keith with the people matching system and method of Bourne. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Keith that doing so would provide improvement in automated identifications of persons of potential interest to each other, particularly persons who are not already known to each other [0003].
As to claim 4, Bourne in view of Keith and in further view of El Daher teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Bourne does not teach, wherein the filtering comprising filtering the subset of other users responsive to a user selected age range. However, Keith teaches, wherein the filtering comprising filtering the subset of other users responsive to a user selected age range (“… For instance, a female user may specify that she wants to date men, that this characteristic can be used for affinity matching but revealed only to men who are interested in dating women, and that she is "extremely" interested in meeting men aged 25-30, "somewhat" interested in meeting men aged 31-35, "not" interested in meeting men younger than 25, and "not" interested in meeting men older than 35” [0044]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, wherein the filtering comprising filtering the subset of other users responsive to a user selected age range, as taught by Keith with the people matching system and method of Bourne. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Keith that doing so would provide improvement in automated identifications of persons of potential interest to each other, particularly persons who are not already known to each other [0003].
As to claim 7, Bourne in view of Keith and in further view of El Daher teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Bourne further teaches, wherein the communication is enabled selectively for a particular other user in the subset of other users that has been selected by the user for communication therewith (“… The user has the opportunity to send a message and arrange to meet in person …” [0036]).
As to claim 8, Bourne in view of Keith and in further view of El Daher teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Bourne further teaches, and wherein the control signal and the another control signal are configured to cause a displaying of the subset of other users and an enabling of the private communication with the subset of other users, while the user is within the proximity radius of the subset of other users (“… The user has the opportunity to send a message and arrange to meet in person …” and “As noted, preferably the user can also vary the distance, physical proximity threshold when the path crossing notification will be activated …” [0034-0036 and 0052-0054]).
Bourne in view of Keith does not teach, wherein the safety radius is less than the proximity radius; cause a displaying of the subset of other users and an enabling of the private communication with the subset of other users, while the user is outside of the safety radius. However, El Daher teaches, wherein the safety radius is less than the proximity radius (“In another embodiment, the review may be subject to a minimum distance requirement—that means that for preserving personal information even further, a user may not be allowed to review another user's profile unless they are more than a certain distance away …” [0049]),
cause a displaying of the subset of other users and an enabling of the private communication with the subset of other users, while the user is outside of the safety radius (“User A is then taken to step 102 in the website, where he can specify to the website the kind of feedback about his profile that he is looking for. In this context, kinds of feedback means what part of his profile does user A want reviewed, and what he is hoping to achieve. Examples of those kinds of feedback are: photo feedback …” and “For example, on an online dating site T, if user A is male, he may request anonymous feedback from women on T and user A would never know who the women who reviewed him were” and “In another embodiment, the review may be subject to a minimum distance requirement—that means that for preserving personal information even further, a user may not be allowed to review another user's profile unless they are more than a certain distance away …” [0023-0024 and 0043 and 0049]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, wherein the safety radius is less than the proximity radius; cause a displaying of the subset of other users and an enabling of the private communication with the subset of other users, while the user is outside of the safety radius, as taught by El Daher with the people matching system and method of Bourne. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of El Daher that doing so would be for safety and privacy reasons [0049].
As to claim 11, Bourne in view of Keith and in further view of El Daher teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Bourne further teaches, wherein the method is performed in an actual physical environment (“The Path Crossing Engine assimilates the future location paths for a user and compares the future location paths to that of their friends, social graph or wider groups of like minded people. By day, hour or minute increments the distance, or proximity, between the future locations of friends is measured. Paths may physically cross or may come close to crossing the tangent of the other user's path …” and “” [0034-0036]).
As to claim 12, Bourne in view of Keith and in further view of El Daher teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Bourne does not teach, wherein the method is performed in any of a virtual reality environment, an augmented reality environment, or a mixed reality environment. However, Keith teaches, wherein the method is performed in any of a virtual reality environment, an augmented reality environment, or a mixed reality environment (“In another embodiment, a user can initiate a "virtual check-in" at a location, although not physically present at the location …” and “… or instance, an accountant can search for places having someone seeking an accountant, then virtually check-in, to see if an affinity match is suggested” [0054 and 0093]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, wherein the method is performed in any of a virtual reality environment, an augmented reality environment, or a mixed reality environment, as taught by Keith with the people matching system and method of Bourne. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Keith that doing so would provide improvement in automated identifications of persons of potential interest to each other, particularly persons who are not already known to each other [0003].
As to claim 13, Bourne in view of Keith and in further view of El Daher teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Bourne further teaches, wherein the user selection specifies at least two interaction purposes for use by the filtering (“… For instance, using an input menu, the user may select whether the contact is a close friend, an acquaintance or a business contact…” [0035 and Fig. 3] Examiner notes that Fig. 3 shows the option to “Include the following Groups” which allows the user to select multiple groups).
As to claim 14, Bourne in view of Keith and in further view of El Daher teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Bourne further teaches, further comprising receiving an event mode selection that is selected by the user, the event mode selection automatically restricting the subset of other users to include other users subscribed to a given event that are within the proximity radius and cross paths with the user (“… As previously explained, there may be preferences set to determine the distance or time threshold under which a friend triggers a path crossing opportunity or the number of such events” and “… The left portion illustrates preferences for path crossings. The check boxes indicate which groups of friends that a user wishes to be alerted (of path crossing opportunities). The drop box indicates the distance (e.g., in miles) within which a friend must travel to trigger an alert or other notification. The middle portion of the figure illustrates the user's schedule in an agenda format. In this agenda format, events are shared with friends and profile pictures (of the friends) subscribing to the event are shown below the subject line …” and “… Further, the path crossing engine may determine that a particular future route intersects with one or more people, events, and combinations thereof” [0041 and 0048-0050 and 0058]).
As to claim 15, Bourne in view of Keith and in further view of El Daher teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Bourne does not teach, further comprising eliminating other users having non-selected gender types from being included in the subset of other users, based on a preferred gender selection that the user wants to match with. However, Keith teaches, further comprising eliminating other users having non-selected gender types from being included in the subset of other users, based on a preferred gender selection that the user wants to match with (“… For instance, a female user may specify that she wants to date men, that this characteristic can be used for affinity matching but revealed only to men who are interested in dating women …” [0044]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, further comprising eliminating other users having non-selected gender types from being included in the subset of other users, based on a preferred gender selection that the user wants to match with, as taught by Keith with the people matching system and method of Bourne. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Keith that doing so would provide improvement in automated identifications of persons of potential interest to each other, particularly persons who are not already known to each other [0003].
As to claim 16, Bourne in view of Keith and in further view of El Daher teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Bourne does not teach, further comprising eliminating other users belonging to other industry types from being included in the subset of other users, based on at least one of an industry type of the user and an industry type that the user is interested in. However, Keith teaches, further comprising eliminating other users belonging to other industry types from being included in the subset of other users, based on at least one of an industry type of the user and an industry type that the user is interested in (“The affinity system enables matching based on desired characteristics. For instance, if a user is an accountant, the user can include in their characteristics of persons of interest someone who is looking for an accountant” and “… For instance, an accountant can search for places having someone seeking an accountant, then virtually check-in, to see if an affinity match is suggested” [0022 and 0093]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, further comprising eliminating other users having non-selected gender types from being included in the subset of other users, based on a preferred gender selection that the user wants to match with, as taught by Keith with the people matching system and method of Bourne. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Keith that doing so would provide improvement in automated identifications of persons of potential interest to each other, particularly persons who are not already known to each other [0003].
As to claim 17, Bourne in view of Keith and in further view of El Daher teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Bourne further teaches, further comprising informing the user, that the user and at least one person other user in the subset of other users share with a specified frequency, at least part of a path in their respective travels (“As an alternative, the Path Crossing engine may access location information, from third party APIs, indicating an individual habitually visits a location, like a coffee shop, or the like, and then present a probability that the friend may be at some particular intersection” and “The future location path may be annotated with additional information, such as locations (e.g., bars, coffee shops, restaurants, etc.) that are routinely visited so that a more detailed or fine-grained pattern of future locations may be used to facilitate the future path generation and path crossing determination” [0038 and 0056]).
As to claim 20, Bourne in view of Keith and in further view of El Daher teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Bourne further teaches, wherein having respective trajectories that cross paths comprises respective directions of at least a portion of the respective trajectories intersecting each other for at least a predetermined time period (“The Path Crossing Engine assimilates the future location paths for a user and compares the future location paths to that of their friends, social graph or wider groups of like minded people. By day, hour or minute increments the distance, or proximity, between the future locations of friends is measured. Paths may physically cross or may come close to crossing the tangent of the other user's path …” [0034-0036]).
As to claim 21, Bourne in view of Keith and in further view of El Daher teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Bourne further teaches, wherein having respective trajectories that cross paths comprises respective directions of at least a portion of the respective trajectories being opposing to each other for at least a predetermined time period to place the user and another user in the subset of other users into a face-to-face position (“The Path Crossing Engine assimilates the future location paths for a user and compares the future location paths to that of their friends, social graph or wider groups of like minded people. By day, hour or minute increments the distance, or proximity, between the future locations of friends is measured. Paths may physically cross or may come close to crossing the tangent of the other user's path …” [0034-0036] Examiner notes that Fig. 5 shows two paths with trajectories opposing each other).
As to claim 23, Bourne in view of Keith and in further view of El Daher teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Bourne further teaches, wherein the filtering is performed during pre-specified time intervals (“… The SpaceTime engine 121 represents the user's path through time and space recording data points at 15 minute intervals (or some other time interval) between departure time and arrival time …” [0032-0034]).
As to claim 26, Bourne in view of Keith and in further view of El Daher teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Bourne further teaches, wherein the proximity radius is user adjustable (“Thresholds may be set for relationship, distance and timing, e.g. using a user interface such as shown in FIG. 3, which is representative …” [0035]).
As to claim 27, Bourne in view of Keith and in further view of El Daher teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Bourne further teaches, wherein the computer-implemented method is performed by an application running on the user device (“A representative mobile device is a smartphone or tablet, such as the iPhone.RTM. (or iPad.RTM.) or an Android.TM.-based phone, but this is not a limitation …” and “FIG. 6 illustrates a further example showing three (3) display screens that are available in a mobile device application that implements the client-side of the future location functionality …” [0018-0020 and 0048]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0231858 to Bourne (Bourne) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0066789 to Keith (Keith) and in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0287146 to El Daher (El Daher), as applied to claim 2 above, and in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0118533 to Benchetrit (Benchetrit).
As to claim 3, Bourne in view of Keith and in further view of El Daher teaches all of the limitations of claim 2 as discussed above. Bourne in view of Keith and in further view of El Daher does not teach, further comprising suppressing age data and enabling a display of job data responsive to the user selected interaction purpose specifying business. However, Benchetrit teaches, further comprising suppressing age data and enabling a display of job data responsive to the user selected interaction purpose (“… As shown in FIGS. 1A-1C, the name 108 is entirely hidden in stealth mode; only a first name is shown in partially visible mode; and the entire name 108 is shown in fully visible mode. The age 110 is shown only in partially visible and fully visible modes …” and “In the example of FIG. 3A, the second user has elected to set their profile 306 in stealth mode with respect to the first user …” [0041-0043 and 0048-0050]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, further comprising suppressing age data and enabling a display of job data responsive to the user selected interaction purpose
While Benchetrit teaches a user selected interaction purpose, Benchetrit does not teach a user selected interaction purpose specifying business. However, Bourne teaches, a user selected interaction purpose specifying business (“… For instance, using an input menu, the user may select whether the contact is a close friend, an acquaintance or a business contact …” [0042]). Since each individual element and its function are shown in the art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself—that is in the substitution of the user selected interaction purpose specifying business of Bourne for the user selected interaction purpose of Benchetrit. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Bourne that doing so would enable meeting friends or like-minded people [0004].
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0231858 to Bourne (Bourne) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0066789 to Keith (Keith) and in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0287146 to El Daher (El Daher), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2014/0040368 to Janssens (Janssens).
As to claim 5, Bourne in view of Keith and in further view of El Daher teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Bourne in view of Keith and in further view of El Daher does not teach, wherein the method is performed as a subscription service, and wherein different subscription levels provide blurred images versus unblurred images of different people in the subset of other users. However, Janssens teaches, wherein the method is performed as a subscription service, and wherein different subscription levels provide blurred images versus unblurred images of different people in the subset of other users (“Membership level 504 indicates a level of membership associated with the user. Different levels of membership may entitle users to different levels of service, different features, and so on …” [0072-0075]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, wherein the method is performed as a subscription service, and wherein different subscription levels provide blurred images versus unblurred images of different people in the subset of other users, as taught by Janssens with the people matching system and method of Bourne in view of Keith and in further view of El Daher. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Janssens that doing so would provide a user-friendly and efficient way for a user to find people or items of interest [0004].
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0231858 to Bourne (Bourne) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0066789 to Keith (Keith) and in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0287146 to El Daher (El Daher), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0327003 to Caruso (Caruso).
As to claim 10, Bourne in view of Keith and in further view of El Daher teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Bourne in view of Keith and in further view of El Daher does not teach, wherein the safety radius is greater than the proximity radius. However, Caruso teaches, wherein the safety radius is greater than the proximity radius (“… If they do not, then their location would be shown to all (or those within a first pre-determined distance from the user) at step 2306. If, however, the user choses to limit discoverability, then the user's location would be limited as discussed above at step 2308, ending the method at step 2312. This limitation may result in the user only being discoverable by those within a second pre-determined distance from the user (e.g., those within the same business, etc.) …” [0052-0056]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, wherein the safety radius is greater than the proximity radius, as taught by Caruso with the people matching system and method of Bourne in view of Keith and in further view of von Graf. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Caruso that doing so would prevents unwanted stalking [0053].
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0231858 to Bourne (Bourne) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0066789 to Keith (Keith) and in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0287146 to El Daher (El Daher), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0140672 to Shnitzer et al. (Shnitzer).
As to claim 18, Bourne in view of Keith and in further view of El Daher teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Bourne in view of Keith and in further view of El Daher does not teach, further comprising receiving user actions comprising swiping up to keep another user in the subset of other users, and swiping down to remove the another user from the subset of other users. However, Shnitzer teaches further comprising receiving user actions comprising swiping up to keep another user in the subset of other users, and swiping down to remove the another user from the subset of other users (“… For example, a gesture swiping up a screen may be an acceptance, while swiping down may be a rejection …” [0085]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, further comprising receiving user actions comprising swiping up to keep another user in the subset of other users, and swiping down to remove the another user from the subset of other users, as taught by Shnitzer with the people matching system and method of Bourne in view of Keith and in further view of El Daher. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Shnitzer that doing so would provide for connecting geographically proximal users based on user specified activity interests and proficiency [0050].
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0231858 to Bourne (Bourne) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0066789 to Keith (Keith) and in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0287146 to El Daher (El Daher), as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0005080 to Sherwin et al. (Sherwin) and in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0154676 to Matousek et al. (Matousek).
As to claim 19, Bourne in view of Keith and in further view of El Daher teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Bourne in view of Keith and in further view of El Daher does not teach, further comprising providing a user interface having an undo arrow for undoing a like selection action and an unlike selection action performed by the user. However, Sherwin teaches further comprising providing a user interface (“… In an embodiment, the user system can tap the heart icon again to unlike …” [0078]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, further comprising providing a user interface
While Sherwin teaches a user interface for undoing, Sherwin does not teach a user interface having an undo arrow for undoing. However, Matousek teaches, a user interface having an undo arrow for undoing (“… The user may also undo a previous action by selecting the "undo" or "back" arrow icon 62 …” [0045]). Since each individual element and its function are shown in the art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself—that is in the substitution of the user interface having an undo arrow for undoing of Matousek for the user interface for undoing of Sherwin. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. One having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention would be motivated to do so for the benefit of creating a custom user interface.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0231858 to Bourne (Bourne) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0066789 to Keith (Keith) and in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0287146 to El Daher (El Daher), as applied to claim 20 above, and in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0421643 to Saad (Saad).
As to claim 22, Bourne in view of Keith and in further view of El Daher teaches all of the limitations of claim 20 as discussed above. Bourne in view of Keith and in further view of El Daher does not teach, wherein having respective trajectories that cross paths further comprises respective directions of at least a portion of the respective trajectories being identical to each other for at least a predetermined time period to place the user and another user in the subset of other users into a side-by-side position. However, Saad teaches, wherein having respective trajectories that cross paths further comprises respective directions of at least a portion of the respective trajectories being identical to each other for at least a predetermined time period to place the user and another user in the subset of other users into a side-by-side position (“This hypothetical missed connection is between a man and a woman on the NYC subway F train on the night of Monday, Jul. 31, 2023. A man boarded the F train at Delancey St. and sat next to a woman in the second car from the front of the train. They smiled at each other a couple of times, she scrolled through Instagram, he took off his headphones, but he did not work up the nerve to say hi. She got off the train at Carroll St. after looking over at him one last time …” [0011-0013]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, wherein having respective trajectories that cross paths further comprises respective directions of at least a portion of the respective trajectories being identical to each other for at least a predetermined time period to place the user and another user in the subset of other users into a side-by-side position, as taught by Saad with the people matching system and method of Bourne in view of Keith. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Saad that doing so would assist users in connecting in an online environment subsequent to a missed real life connection [0002].
Claims 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0231858 to Bourne (Bourne) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0066789 to Keith (Keith) and in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0287146 to El Daher (El Daher), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of NPL “How to see who likes you on Tinder without paying for Tinder Gold” by Josiah Motley (Motley).
As to claim 24, Bourne in view of Keith and in further view of El Daher teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Bourne further teaches, wherein the control signal causes a displaying of (i) matches to the user (“FIG. 5 is another example of a path crossing display that may be made to one or both of the individuals whose paths are anticipated to intersect (based on the information received and processed by the location platform) …” [0047-0048]).
Bourne in view of Keith and in further view of El Daher does not teach, wherein the control signal causes a displaying of (ii) other users who have liked the user. However, Motley teaches, wherein the control signal causes a displaying of (ii) other users who have liked the user (Examiner particularly notes p. 4 which states, “That’s it! You’re done, now you can see the people who like you without having to drop some serious cash on a Tinder Gold subscription”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, wherein the control signal causes a displaying of (ii) other users who have liked the user, as taught by Motley with the people matching system and method of Bourne in view of Keith. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so for the benefit of better fostering connections between people.
As to claim 25, Bourne in view of Keith and in further view of El Daher and in further view of Motley teaches all of the limitations of claim 24 as discussed above. Bourne in view of Keith and in further view of El Daher does not teach, wherein the other users who have liked the user are blurred for non subscribing or non-premium users. However, Motley teaches, wherein the other users who have liked the user are blurred for non subscribing or non-premium users (Examiner particularly notes p. 2 which states that “You’ve also surely noticed that Tinder likes to dangle the fact that it knows who likes you in front of your face by showing you extremely blurred photos of people who have swiped right on you. It does this in an effort to sell you Tinder Gold, an expensive premium subscription that lets you get around Tinder’s initial selling-point – not knowing who has liked you until you liked them back”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, wherein the other users who have liked the user are blurred for non subscribing or non-premium users, as taught by Motley with the people matching system and method of Bourne in view of Keith and in further view of El Daher. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so for the benefit of better fostering connections between people.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2008/0086261 to Robinson et al. (Bourne) teaches, systems and methods that enable location-based information to be incorporated within a social networking environment are provided. More particularly, the innovation can track locations and trigger notifications to users with regard to persons of interest within their proximate locale.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2014/0280532 to MacNiven (MacNiven) teaches, systems, methods, and software to receive, via a network, data identifying a first user and a location of the first user. The server may then identifying other users within a proximity of the location of the first user and compare a profile of the first user with profiles of the identified other users to identify profile matches between the first user and identified other users. introduction recommendations may be made based on trajectories of individuals that are due to intersect, are intersecting, or are otherwise in close proximity.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 STEPHANIE S WALLICK whose telephone number is (703)756-1081. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571) 272-5587. 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.
/S.S.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/RUPANGINI SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628