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 Claims
The office action is being examined in response to the application filed by the applicant on September 19, 2023.
Claims 1 - 4 are pending and have been examined.
This action is made NON-FINAL.
The examiner would like to note that this application is now being handled by examiner Bill Chen.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 – 4 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.74(d)(1) as being of improper claim structure. Each claim recites multiple limitations that are separated by periods (“.”) rather than semicolons (“;”) Proper claim form requires that all claim elements, except the last, should be terminated with semicolons. Applicant is advised to correct the punctuation so that each limitation ends with a semicolon, with the final limitation ending in a period.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84 (c) as being of insufficient quality. Specifically, the drawings are blurry and difficult to read, making it unclear what is being depicted. The drawings must be amended to provide clean, legible versions that comply with the standards set forth in 37 CFR 1.84. Replacement sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are advised.
Pro Se Paragraphs
It appears the inventor(s) filed the current application pro se (i.e., without the benefit of representation by a registered patent practitioner). While inventors named as applicants in a patent application may prosecute the application pro se, lack of familiarity with patent examination practice and procedure may result in missed opportunities in obtaining optimal protection for the invention disclosed. The inventor(s) may wish to secure the services of a registered patent practitioner to prosecute the application, because the value of a patent is largely dependent upon skilled preparation and prosecution. The Office cannot aid in selecting a patent practitioner.
A listing of registered patent practitioners is available at https://oedci.uspto.gov/OEDCI/. Applicants may also obtain a list of registered patent practitioners located in their area by writing to Mail Stop OED, Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
8. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
9. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
10. Claims 1 – 4 are rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
11. The claim(s) are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. The claim(s) must be in one sentence form only. Note the format of the claims in the patent(s) cited. Examiner notes claim 1 – 4 are claim limitations that are replete with periods and incorrect form. Please refer to reference Brookings et al. (US 2024/0257279A1) for proper claim formatting.
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 – 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A Prong 1: The abstract idea is defined by the elements of:
An online social media platform
Allowing users to connect via computing devices
Providing feedback, reviews, and ratings of other users
Storing reviews in a secure database
Presenting aggregated ratings and review data
Administering privacy controls and content visibility
These limitations describe a method and a system for collecting, analyzing, and displaying information—activities that fall within the “mental processes” and “certain methods of organizing human activity” groupings of abstract ideas, specifically “managing social interactions, relationships, and reputations between individuals”. These limitations describe a collecting user input, evaluating it (ratings/reviews), and determining an aggregated trust score, which could be performed as mental steps or with a pen and paper. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: For independent claims 1 – 4, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements in claim 1 (e.g., a “web portal,” “mobile computing device,” “dedicated server,” “integrated database,” “robust encryption”) are recited at high levels of generality and represent generic computer components performing their ordinary functions (receiving, transmitting, storing, processing, and displaying data). The elements fail to indicate the improvement to the functioning of the computer itself or an improvement in another technology/technical field. Instead, the claims merely use generic computer components as tools to implement the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B: For independent claims 1 -4, the claims are evaluated to determine whether they recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (e.g., an inventive concept). As indicated in the Step 2A Prong 2 analysis, the additional element(s) in the claims are merely, using a generic computer device or computing technologies and/or other machinery merely as a tool to a mere instruction to practice the invention. This is because the claimed invention must improve upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. The specification describes the elements (generic computing devices, mobile applications, web portals, databases, servers, encryption) at a high level without technical detail beyond what is routine for one of ordinary skill in the art. The combination of these elements amounts to no more than implementing the abstract idea of collecting, processing, and displaying user reputation data on a generic computer. Therefore, the claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and the rationale is sufficient for its reject basis as it is not patent eligible and no comments are necessary as it is also consistent with MPEP 2106.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being unpatentable over Brooking (U.S. Pub No. 20240257279 A1).
Regarding claim 1:
Brooking discloses:
which can be downloaded and used at users' discretion for interaction and rating the other users, through a quantitative and qualitative method that is embedded in the application. Figs. 2 – 3; [¶0006 - 0007]: The communication chat line and multiaccess communication among users is hosted on a social media platform.
As per claim 1, the application presents a unique form of social media platform featuring a review, rating, and feedback system that empowers users to share their assessments of fellow users. Figs. 2, 9 – 11, 13 – 15; [¶0006]: The disclosure gathers a numeric rating from a plurality of users written by another plurality of users.
As per claim 1, the application is user-friendly accessibility, allowing users to connect via any computing device with internet access. Fig. 17; [¶0065]: The technology may be coupled and paired with Internet of Things (IoT) integration.
As per claim 1, the application operates as a web-based software platform hosted on a dedicated server with an integrated database designed for the secure storage and reporting of user reviews. It prioritizes user privacy through robust encryption and other protective software measures. [¶0072]: Encryption is incorporated for enhanced security within the application.
As per claim 1, the invention is a computer-implemented social media platform featuring a comprehensive feedback, review, and data processing system seamlessly integrated into a dedicated software application. This system encompasses essential components, including a database, server infrastructure, and a user-friendly interface tailored for community members. Additionally, a dedicated administrative team oversees operations to ensure the platform's adherence to established guidelines and privacy policies while promoting fair and transparent user reviews. [¶0006]: A memory is configured to store a plethora of databases. [¶0092]: MLS servers that rely on a server infrastructure to function are disclosed. [¶0009 – 0010]: A display is coupled to the CPU displaying an interface for users to select a plurality of action buttons.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being unpatentable over Smarr (U.S. Pub No. 20120110096 A1).
Regarding claim 3:
Brooking does not disclose restricting the visibility of posted content exclusively to individuals identified as ‘family’ within a user’s network. However, Smarr teaches:
wherein users are provided with the option to restrict the visibility of their posted content exclusively to individuals identified as "family" within their network, thereby enhancing user control over content sharing and privacy management. [¶0037]: A user is able to filter their social circle to different tagged groups of people (i.e., friends, coworkers, family).
As per claim 3, further comprising allowing users to define and manage their "family" list by selecting specific individuals from their network, thus providing users with flexibility in determining the recipients of their shared content. [¶0037 – 0038]: A user is able to organize a contact through different groups (i.e., friends, coworkers, family) and from there control the visibility of content shared.
As per claim 3, further comprising enabling users to set post visibility options on a per-post basis, providing granular control over which posts are shared with family members only and which are shared with a broader audience. [¶0037 – 0038]: A user is able to organize a contact through different groups (i.e., friends, coworkers, family) and from there control the visibility of content shared. Figs. 11A, 11B; [¶0054]: “Users can indicate one or more social circles for distribution of the post.”
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brooking (U.S. Pub No. 20240257279 A1) in view of Kinder (U.S. Pub No. 20240056298 A1).
Regarding claim 2:
Brooking discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses:
As per claim 2, a method of accessing a user profile within said mobile application; Figs. 5, 7 – 9; [¶0098 - 0099] A user is able to search for other users (including user profiles) as well as other elements through entering the query into a search bar.
As per claim 2, a method of prompting the user to input their first and last name in a designated field; Fig. 9; [¶0057]: An account settings screen displays a field for a user to input their name.
Brooking further discloses:
Fig. 9; [¶0057]: An account settings screen displays a field for a user to input their name.
Brooking does not disclose the first and last name nor a photo ID being an immutable element. However, Kinder teaches:
As per claim 2, a method of storing and establishing the input first and last name as the immutable default name on the user's profile, distinct from any other profile attributes; Fig 1; [¶0104]: A user is prompted to authenticate/validate their identity. Furthermore, immutable demographic data is taught to prevent potential fraud and to guarantee the identity of an individual.
As per claim 2, a method of prompting the user to upload a video recording of themselves stating their full name; with or without the accompaniment of a photo ID for further confirmation. Figs. 6 – 7; [¶0054 - 0055]: An authentication service is utilized to obtain and capture proof of identification-- with one of the methods being with a driver’s license. Fig. 1; [¶0038]: A user may also be able to authenticate through voice or a combination of authentication methods using voice.
As per claim 2, a method of prompting the user to upload a dedicated image of themselves distinct from a changeable profile picture; Fig. 1; [¶0053]: The server requests from the user a validated profile picture. [¶0030]: “Such implementations and embodiments may prevent image swapping for authentication purposes”
As per claim 2, a method of setting the uploaded dedicated image as the immutable Profile ID, uniquely placed within the user's profile, wherein said Profile ID acts as a primary visual identification of the user and remains unchanged through regular profile editing means; Fig. 1; [¶0053]: The server requests from the user a validated profile picture. [¶0030]: “Such implementations and embodiments may prevent image swapping for authentication purposes”
As per claim 2, a method of barring user-initiated modifications to the default name and Profile ID through standard profile editing functions; [¶0030]: “Such implementations and embodiments may prevent image swapping for authentication purposes”
As per claim 2, a method of permitting modifications to the default name and Profile ID exclusively through a distinct update confirmation process inside the application. Figs. 1, 10 - 11; [¶0104 - 0106]: The authentication server permits users to update their demographic data they previously provided— the user processes their request, if approved proceeds with the re-authenticating procedure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to combine Brooking’s machine-based communication tool for transaction monitoring and execution with a user’s first/last name as well as their profile ID as an immutable element, as taught by Kinder, in order to “ensure the security of such resources by limiting or prohibiting unintended access or leakage.”
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brooking (U.S. Pub No. 20240257279 A1) in view of Kinder (U.S. Pub No. 20240056298 A1) in further view of Smarr (U.S. Pub No. 20120110096 A1).
Regarding claim 4:
Brooking discloses:
Review and rating Access; [¶0006]: The method records a numeric rating from a first set of plurality of users from a second plurality of users.
Interaction Assessment Mechanism; Figs. 10 – 11; [¶0057 – 0058]: A rating system is used to assess other professionals during a deal/interaction, documenting deal completions/ratings.
Anonymity and privacy Features; [¶0007]: Multiaccess communication includes the option to private group messaging, a privacy feature, that uses encryption to ensure confidentiality of messages sent between user to user.
Rating Visualization; and, Fig. 10; [¶0058]: A rating screen displays a visualization for a numerical rating during a transaction for a plethora of users, in this case the lender and the buyer agent.
Aggregate scoring representation. [¶0099]: (Refer to the ‘Dashboard Screen’ section of the paragraph) User is able to access aggregate star ratings for the plethora of Circles.
As per claim 4, the system involves the Review and Rating Access enables users to access the rating and review features on the platform; Figs. 9 – 10; [¶0057 – 0058]: A rating screen is displayed to the user in order to view ratings.
As per claim 4, the system involves interaction assessment mechanism wherein initiating an option for users allow to rate other users grounded on both digital interactions within the platform and real-world encounters; Figs. 10 – 11; [¶0058 – 0059]: Users are able to access the rating screen to curate a review in regards to a transaction/deal with another user. [Examiner’s Note: The disclosure covers transaction monitoring for a marketplace, which encompasses deals made physically in person, or via Internet.]
As per claim 4, the system involves an aggregate scoring and representation mechanism; [¶0099]: (Refer to the ‘Dashboard Screen’ section of the paragraph) User is able to access aggregate star ratings for the plethora of Circles.
As per claim 4, the system involves tabulating individual numerical ratings in an aggregate manner to derive an overall score for each user; [¶0099]: (Refer to the ‘Dashboard Screen’ section of the paragraph) User is able to access aggregate star ratings for the plethora of Circles.
As per claim 4, the system involves visually displaying the derived aggregate score for users. [¶0099]: (Refer to the ‘Dashboard Screen’ section of the paragraph) User is able to access aggregate star ratings for the plethora of Circles.
As per claim 4, the system involves facilitates a segment for users to elucidate their experience or interactions, forming a review for the user being assessed; Figs. 9 – 10; [¶0057 – 0058]: A rating screen is displayed to the user in order to view ratings. [¶0099]: (Refer to the ‘Dashboard Screen’ section of the paragraph) A user is able to access the Ratings screen to leave ratings for other users. [Examiner’s Note: With respect to BRI, the claim is interpreted as the system having a review-writing section where one user can write about their experience with another user, which is then stored and displayed as part of the reviewed person’s profile.]
Brooking further discloses:
Fig. 9; [¶0057]: An account settings screen displays a field for a user to input their name. Fig. 8; [¶0056]: Users are able to upload images and take photos.
Brooking does not disclose authenticating the user’s identity, the first and last name being an immutable element. However, Kinder teaches:
Authentication Process; Figs. 1, 5 – 11; [¶0030]: The authentication process includes comparing a biometric image of a user to the live captured image of the user.
As per claim 4, the system involves mandating users to confirm their identity through a multi-step verification method; Fig. 1; [¶0038]: Users may authenticate through a plethora of authentication mechanisms, including: one-time pass code, voice recognition, text message, email authentication, dual-factor/multi-factor authentication, as well as face recognition.
As per claim 4, the system involves entering first and last name, which post- confirmation becomes a permanent and unmodifiable name on their profile; Fig. 1; [¶0053]: The server requests from the user a validated profile picture. [¶0030]: “Such implementations and embodiments may prevent image swapping for authentication purposes”
As per claim 4, the system involves uploading a video of the user vocalizing their full name; Fig. 1; [¶0038]: Users are able to authenticate their identity using voice recognition. Figs. 6 – 7; [¶0054 - 0056]: The client device is able to obtain and capture video frames to further assist with the authentication process. Certain keywords are flagged with an identifier. [Examiner’s Note: With respect to BRI, the limitation is interpreted as uploading a video in which the audio is recorded.]
As per claim 4, the system involves submitting a distinct image, designated as an unchangeable Profile ID in their profile tab; Fig. 1; [¶0053]: The server requests from the user a validated profile picture. [¶0030]: “Such implementations and embodiments may prevent image swapping for authentication purposes”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to combine Brooking’s machine-based communication tool for transaction monitoring and execution with a user’s first/last name as well as their profile ID as an immutable element, as taught by Kinder, in order to “ensure the security of such resources by limiting or prohibiting unintended access or leakage.”
Brookings further teaches:
Figs. 10 – 11; [¶0058 – 0059]: A rating screen where a user is able to rate other professionals in regards to a transaction/deal that has been completed.
Neither Brookings nor Kinder explicitly teach an intuitive interface for users to browse and visit another user’s profile, anonymity and privacy features, as well as color coordinating numerical ratings. However, Smarr teaches:
As per claim 4, the system involves providing an intuitive interface for users to browse and visit another user's profile; Fig. 4B; [¶0092 - 0094]: A search input box allows a user to search for a contact’s name, location, or search time that could be used to search a plethora of contacts.
As per claim 4, the system involves anonymity and Privacy Features; Fig. 3; [¶0064]: A user is able to categorize their contacts into a plethora of different social circles (e.g., personal, private, shared, public shared). Fig. 5; [¶0100]: A shared private circle is created by a user, who then invites certain contacts to join their private circle.
As per claim 4, the system involves granting users the choice to remain unidentified when leaving feedback, ensuring their identity remains undisclosed to the reviewed user and the platform's broader user base; Fig. 6; [¶0112 - 0113]: A user is able to endorse another user. Furthermore, the disclosure provides a ‘hide’ link, allowing the user to ‘hide’ any content they choose.
As per claim 4, the system involves allowing users to opt for privacy settings where their received reviews are concealed, visible only to themselves; Fig. 6; [¶0112 - 0113]: A user is able to endorse another user. Furthermore, the disclosure provides a ‘hide’ link, allowing the user to ‘hide’ any content they choose. [¶0114]: A privacy indicator allows a user to set certain visibility restrictions on a post shared to a private circle.
As per claim 4, the system involves users to choose private settings for their reviews are inhibited from accessing other users' reviews; Fig. 6; [¶0112 - 0113]: A user is able to endorse another user. Furthermore, the disclosure provides a ‘hide’ link, allowing the user to ‘hide’ any content they choose. [¶0114]: A privacy indicator allows a user to set certain visibility restrictions on a post shared to a private circle.
As per claim 4, the system involves a rating visualization mechanism wherein numerical ratings are associated with a color-coded representation system, where different ranges of scores correspond to distinct colors for ease of interpretation; Fig. 3H; [¶0085 – 0086]: A user is able to customize the appearance of their social circles and elements of their social circles.
As per claim 4, the system involves defining various ranges for numerical ratings, wherein each range corresponds to a specific color in the color-coded representation system, but not limited to any specific numbers or colors; Fig. 3H; [¶0085 – 0086]: A user is able to customize the appearance of their social circles and elements of their social circles.
It would have been obvious of one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to combine Brooking’s disclosed machine-based communication tool for transaction monitoring and execution with filtering visibility of published content through different labeled groups of users as well as categorizing the numerical ratings into an easy-to-read color system, as taught by Smarr, in order to “provide users with the ability to subscribe to secured discussion forums that are, in some cases, moderated by other users.” The motivation to combine represents the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions, yielding no more than the predictable result of improving user interpretation of ratings.
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Khan (US20210358056 A1) is pertinent because it is directly related to “a method and system of connecting users of a social media network that have a shared interest in certain medical conditions, and ranking the credibility of social media users and their content.”
Hafeez (US20160055551 A1) is pertinent because it directed to “computer and web-based shopping services and real world comparison feedback services. Specifically, this invention relates to systems and methods for providing web-based social shopping services and real world comparison feedback services whereby users can create groups based on various criteria in order to get real-time or near real-time feedback and opinions regarding online and real world purchases, potential purchases and comparisons.”
Work (US8010460 B2) is pertinent because it is related to “systems and methods for reputation evaluation of online users in a social networking scheme.”
Caluwaert (US20200296097 A1) is pertinent because it is directly related to “an online identity verification application may utilize photographic, biometric, and documentation identification protocols. The verification application may use a multi-tier verification process based on identification protocols to verify the owner of a verification account and subsequently verify any linked accounts.”
Su (US9398086 B2) is pertinent because it is directed to “computer software systems and methods, in particular, systems and methods for the creation and maintenance of social networks in social networking applications.”
Raji (US20130297692 A1) is pertinent because it is related to “a method and apparatus for social networking and, more particularly, the embodiments described herein relate to a social family networking.”
Adams (AU2015203294 A1) is pertinent because it is directly related to “methods, systems, and apparatus, including computer programs encoded on a computer storage medium, for transmitting contact data for displaying graphical representations of contacts for display to a user, the contacts being contacts of the user within a computer-implemented social networking service, generating a first social circle of the user, the first social circle comprising a first subset of contacts of the user within the social networking service and defining a first distribution for digital content, generating a second social circle of the user, the second social circle comprising a second subset of contacts of the user within the social networking service and defining a second distribution for digital content, and, in response to user input, providing the first social circle and the second social circle for selection by the user to define a distribution of digital content, the distribution comprising at least one of the first distribution and the second distribution”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bill Chen whose telephone number is (571)270-0660. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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 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.
/BILL CHEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/NATHAN C UBER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626