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 21-47 were previously pending. Claims 21-22 were amended in the reply filed November 12, 2025. Claims 21-47 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments overcome the rejection made under § 112(b) and it is withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejection made under § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claims do not recite an abstract idea. "Instead, the amended claims recite improving technology that users might use to identify where to find social prospects having characteristics they desire by providing a platform that employs historical and real-time data to identify establishments where such social prospects are likely to be currently located, and then display identifiers associated with those identified establishments on the user's device." Remarks, 9. Aside from the generic device, Applicant's own characterization here is abstract.
"This advancement is not merely marketing or sales activities or managing personal relationships or interactions between people, but instead goes beyond those principles by providing real-time identification of establishments where desirable social prospects are currently located." Remarks, 9. Again, this merely restates the abstract idea. "This also goes beyond mere matchmaking 'mental processes' because a matchmaker would not be capable of processing real-time data from a plurality of establishments in order to determine which establishments at that moment have desirable social prospects of the searching user." Remarks, 9. There is no reason why a person could not observe and analyze two establishments and generate the broadly recited "identifier" (e.g., "Restaurant A" or "Restaurant B") to return to another person.
"In contrast, the claims of the present application as presently amended do not recite any such user-to-user interactions, and instead recite a computing platform that identifies establishments and generates displayable identifiers corresponding to those identified establishments. Applicant recognizes that identifying establishments and then generating identifiers for display to a user may be used to inform the user's decision to go and interact with potential social prospects, but it is clear that the claims do not recite social activities or any other managing of personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people." Remarks, 10. The entire focus of the claimed invention, as supported by the disclosure and the claims themselves, is to identify opportunities for people to engage in social interactions.
"However, the mere provision of identifying establishments as part of a claim's application does not, by itself, render the claim directed to a marketing or sales activity or behavior or business relationship." Remarks, 10. The purpose of identifying establishments is for the user to patronize them (i.e., a marketing or sales activity or behavior).
"A human is not capable of knowing all such characteristics of social prospects at every establishment nearby, and the human mind is not capable of generating identifiers and causing them to be displayed on a searching user's device." Remarks, 12. The claims do not recite "every establishment nearby" and instead merely recite "establishments" (i.e., two or more). The generic user device has been treated as an additional element and the basis of the rejection is not that a human can mentally display data on a searching user's device. There mere presence of a generic computer does not mean that an abstract idea is not also recited at this point in the framework.
Applicant also argues that the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. "The hardware components recited in independent claim 21 are not merely used as tools and instructions to implement allegedly abstract ideas. Instead, the use of hardware components as claimed in independent claim 21 are essential to the operation of the claimed methods, and the presence of the hardware components in the claims places a meaningful limit on the scope of the claims." Remarks, 13. Applicant does not identify what these hardware components are or why they perform any non-generic or non-abstract function. It is well established that generic computers with instructions to implement an abstract idea are not patent-eligible. See FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.") (citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245,1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) (emphasis added).
"Conventional social 'dating' platforms and services limit communication and connection between a searching user and potential social prospects to situations wherein a prospect agrees to have direct contact with the searching user that reaches out to them, typically via the platform or service." Remarks, 14. This is identifying a problem with conventional socializing services, not a difficulty particular to computers or any other technology. Nearly every personal computer or mobile device is capable of the broadly recited communications.
Applicant also argues that the claims recite significantly more than the abstract idea. "Specifically, as outlined above, the claimed subject matter solves longstanding technical problems related to 'meeting' social prospects that fit a searching user's given criteria in person that is not available through well-understood, routine or conventional approaches." Remarks, 14. Applicant does not set forth any technical problems and instead again relies upon abstract problems with conventional socializing platforms (see Remarks, 15).
"The additional elements do more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process, since it is clear that a process in accordance with the present claims does not even exist in the prior art. Therefore, by definition, the claims cannot recite computer components that simply 'apply it' to an existing abstract idea or process." Remarks, 15. "The 'novelty' of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 188-89 (1981). "[U]nder the Mayo/Alice framework, a claim directed to a newly discovered law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) cannot rely on the novelty of that discovery for the inventive concept necessary for patent eligibility." Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial L.L.C., 818 F.3d 1369, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See also Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating § 102 novelty."). Accordingly, the rejection is maintained.
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 21-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter (abstract idea without significantly more). Claims are eligible for patent protection under § 101 if they are in one of the four statutory categories and not directed to a judicial exception to patentability. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). Claims 21-47, each considered as a whole and as an ordered combination, are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A – Prong 1:
The claims recite an abstract idea reflected in the representative functions of the independent claims—including:
storing a plurality of establishment profiles, each establishment profile comprising socialization characteristics pertaining to respective social establishments, wherein the socialization characteristics comprise:
historical and real-time data regarding personal characteristics associated with corresponding social prospects patronizing respective establishments, and
historical and real-time data regarding when corresponding social prospects patronize respective establishments;
receive, from a searching user, a search query directed to finding social prospects, wherein the search query comprises one or more personal characteristics associated with social prospects provided by the searching user;
compare the one or more personal characteristics provided by the searching user to stored socialization characteristics of the establishments;
based on the comparison, identify one or more establishments where social prospects having personal characteristics provided by the searching user are likely to be located based on a corresponding number of socialization characteristics matching the personal characteristics provided by the searching user;
generate one or more identifiers, each corresponding to the respective one or more of the identified establishments; and
present the generated one or more identifiers to the searching user for display.
These limitations taken together qualify as a certain method of organizing human activities because they recite collecting, analyzing, and outputting information for coordinating the future social relationships of people at commercial establishments (i.e., in the terminology of the 2019 Revised Guidance, commercial interactions (including marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities)). Additionally, it recites purely mental processes (e.g., a matchmaker or other person observing personal characteristics and the characteristics of social prospects at an establishment, evaluating them, and arriving at judgment on an establishment to identify to a user).
MPEP 2106 Step 2A – Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no meaningful limitations that transform the exception into a patent eligible application. The elements merely serve to provide a general link to a technological environment (e.g., computers and the Internet) in which to carry out the judicial exception (database; a plurality of software applications executable on a corresponding plurality of user devices, each software application in communication with the platform via a communications network; one or more processors in communication with the database and the plurality of applications, the one or more processors executing software—all recited at a high level of generality). Although they have and execute instructions to perform the abstract idea itself (e.g., modules, program code, etc. to automate the abstract idea), this also does not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as it merely amounts to instructions to "apply it." Aside from such instructions to implement the abstract idea, they are solely used for generic computer operations (e.g., receiving, storing, retrieving, transmitting data), employing the computer as a tool. See FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.") (citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245,1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) (emphasis added).
The claims only manipulate abstract data elements into another form. They do not set forth improvements to another technological field or the functioning of the computer itself and instead use computer elements as tools to improve the functioning of the abstract idea identified above. Looking at the additional limitations and abstract idea as an ordered combination and as a whole adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Rather than any meaningful limits, their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation of the abstract idea identified in Prong One. None of the additional elements recited "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment,' that is, implementation via computers." Alice Corp., slip op. at 16 (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)).
At the levels of abstraction described above, the claims do not readily lend themselves to a finding that they are directed to a nonabstract idea. Therefore, the analysis proceeds to step 2B. See BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("The Enfish claims, understood in light of their specific limitations, were unambiguously directed to an improvement in computer capabilities. Here, in contrast, the claims and their specific limitations do not readily lend themselves to a step-one finding that they are directed to a nonabstract idea. We therefore defer our consideration of the specific claim limitations’ narrowing effect for step two.") (citations omitted).
MPEP 2106 Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as presented in Step 2A Prong 2 (i.e., they amount to nothing more than a general link to a particular technological environment and instructions to apply it there). Moreover, the additional elements recited are known and conventional computing elements (database; a plurality of software applications executable on a corresponding plurality of user devices, each software application in communication with the platform via a communications network; one or more processors in communication with the database and the plurality of applications, the one or more processors executing software—see published Specification ¶¶ 0051-52 describing these at a high level of generality and in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the technical particulars of such additional elements to satisfy the statutory disclosure requirements).
The Federal Circuit has recognized that "an invocation of already-available computers that are not themselves plausibly asserted to be an advance, for use in carrying out improved mathematical calculations, amounts to a recitation of what is 'well-understood, routine, [and] conventional.'" SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 890 F.3d 1016, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (alteration in original) (citing Mayo v. Prometheus, 566 U.S. 66, 73 (2012)). Apart from the instructions to implement the abstract idea, they only serve to perform well-understood functions (e.g., receiving, storing, retrieving, transmitting data—see Specification above as well as Alice Corp.; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015) covering the well-known nature of these basic computer functions).
"The use and arrangement of conventional and generic computer components recited in the claims—such as a database, user terminal, and server— do not transform the claim, as a whole, into 'significantly more' than a claim to the abstract idea itself. We have repeatedly held that such invocations of computers and networks that are not even arguably inventive are insufficient to pass the test of an inventive concept in the application of an abstract idea." Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1056 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Dependent Claims Step 2A:
The limitations of the dependent claims but for those addressed below merely set forth further refinements of the abstract idea without changing the analysis already presented (i.e., they merely narrow the abstract idea without adding any new additional elements beyond it). Additionally, for the same reasons as above, the limitations fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea as the independent claims (i.e., a generic processor running software applications to perform the abstract idea).
Claim 22 recites a mobile application. Claims 24 and 27-28 recite an artificial intelligence engine at a high level of generality. Claims 31 and 39 recite facilitating communication between applications running on two generic devices. Claims 38 and 42 recite generic "location technology" that is ubiquitous in modern mobile devices. Claim 41 introduces a generic application running on a generic device. Claims 45-46 recite computer-scannable code displayable on the application and the application executing on the device whose application is used to scan the displayed code and communicate the scanning to the one or more processors. All of these merely serve to further limit the general linking of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. They are all generic computer components/abilities being used as tools rather than being improved themselves. The usage of location technology and scannable codes can also be viewed as extra solution data gathering activities (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) that are merely used to capture data from generic mobile devices in order to better coordinate abstract social activities (i.e., by providing the whereabouts and other personal information about humans).
Dependent Claims Step 2B:
The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea. Although they add the elements identified in 2A above, these do not amount to significantly more for the same reasons they fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Moreover, the Specification also indicates this is the routine use of known components for the same reasons presented with respect to the elements in the independent claims above (i.e., they are only described at a high level of generality without appreciable technical specifics; see published Specification ¶ 0110—mobile application; ¶ 0149—artificial intelligence engine; ¶ 0051—facilitating communication between applications running on two generic devices; ¶ 0125—location technology such as GPS; ¶¶ 0051-52—application running on a generic device; ¶¶ 0135-36—computer-scannable code displayable on the application and the application executing on the device whose application is used to scan the displayed code and communicate the scanning to the one or more processors). Accordingly, they are not directed to significantly more than the exception itself, and are not eligible subject matter under § 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Qiao, et al., Recommending nearby strangers instantly based on similar check-in behaviors, IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering, Vol. 12, No. 3, 2014, pgs. 1114-1124 (Reference U of the attached PTO-892) relates to identifying social prospects.
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 DANIEL VETTER whose telephone number is (571)270-1366. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6:00.
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.
/DANIEL VETTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628