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 .
Claims 1-2 (i.e., Claims 1-18 as renumbered – see Office Action Appendix, see below) are pending for examination. This action is Non-Final.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1 and 2 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim(s) 1 does not appear to be in proper format. Claim(s) 1 contains three limitations “generating...”, “approximating...” and “identifying....” and then ends with a period (which is proper format). However, listed after claim 1 are additional limitations that are not numbered and that appear to be dependent off of claim 1, as they contain the language “the system as per claim 1...”. There are 6 instances of these additional limitations till Claim 2 is reached. These appear to be dependent claims. Additionally, “the system as per claim 1” in these instances should be corrected to “the method as per claim 1.” For the purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner will examine these as dependent claims – please see Office Action Appendix for claim numbering as claim 1 will include now claim 2-7 as renumbered.
Claim(s) 2 is not in proper format. Claim(s) 2 contains no limitations and appears incomplete as it ends with “wherein”. There are no additional limitations in claim 2. Listed after claim 2 are additional limitations that appear to be dependent off of claim 2, as they contain the language “the system as per claim 2...”. There are 10 instances of these additional limitations. These appear to be dependent claims. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner will examine these as dependent claims – please see Office Action Appendix for claim numbering as claim 2 will now be claim 8 and will include claims 9-18 as renumbered.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 (i.e., Claims 1-18 as renumbered – see Office Action Appendix) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1 (i.e., Claim 1 as originally presented); Claim 1 recites “approximating the satisfaction that a user of the matching service based on food cravings and has in the relationships that the user forms with others.” However, it is unclear how the “approximating the satisfaction” is additionally based on “and has relationships that the user forms with others.” The term “and has relationships that the user forms with others” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets this limitation to be an approximation of a food craving and a match between a user and another user.
Regarding Claim 1 (i.e., Claim 1 as originally presented); recites the limitation "the other user" in the last limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim 1 (i.e., Claim 1 as originally presented); recites the limitation "the first user" in the last limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claims 2-7; these depend from Claim(s) 1, respectfully. Therefore, they inherit the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection issues noted above.
Regarding Claim 2; recites the limitation "the platform" in the last limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim 3; recites the limitation "the registration process" in the limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim 4; recites the limitation "the registration" in the limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim 5; recites the limitation "the main dashboard" in the limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim 5; recites the limitation "the feed" in the limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim 5; recites the limitation "the feed" in the limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim 7; recites the limitation "the pre-trained algorithms" in the limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim
Regarding Claim 7; recites the limitation "the age and gender preferences" in the limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Regarding Claim 8 (i.e., Claim 2 as originally presented); recites the limitation "the user" in the limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner will note this to be “a user”.
Regarding Claim 8 (i.e., Claim 2 as originally presented); recites the limitation "the same food preferences" in the limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim
Regarding Claims 9-18; these depend from Claim(s) 2, respectfully. Therefore, they inherit the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection issues noted above.
Regarding Claim 15; recites the limitation "the request" in the limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim
Regarding Claim 15; recites the limitation "the craving poster" in the limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim
Regarding Claim 16; recites the limitation "the craving poster" in the limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim
Regarding Claim 16; recites the limitation "the request" in the limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim
Regarding Claim 17; recites the limitation "the accepted user" in the limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim
Regarding Claim 17; recites the limitation "the app" in the limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim
Regarding Claim 18; recites the limitation "the users" in the limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim 18; the term “satisfy food craving” in claim 18 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “satisfy food craving” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner will note this to be a meetup for food.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 2 (i.e., Claim 8 as renumbered – see Office Action Appendix) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding Claim 2 (i.e., Claim 8 as renumbered – see Office Action Appendix); the claim calls for a system; however, there is no hardware element found within the claimed system. Additionally, there are no limitations recited within the body of the claim. As the body of the claim does not positively recite any hardware embodiment, the claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The nominal recitation of a system in the preamble with an absence of a hardware element in the body of the claim fails to make the claim statutory under 35 USC 101. The Examiner respectfully suggests that the claim be further amended to positively recites at least one hardware element within the body of the claim to make the claim statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. Despite, this, for purposes of compact prosecution the claims are reanalyzed below as if they pass step 1, however, correction is still required.
Claim(s) 1-2 (i.e., Claim(s) 1-18 as renumbered – see Office Action Appendix) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claim(s) 1-2 (Claim(s) 1-18 as renumbered – see Office Action Appendix) are directed to a process and machine. Therefore, the claims are directed to statutory subject matter under Step 1 (Step 1: YES). See MPEP 2106.03.
Prong 1, Step 2A:
Claim 1 (i.e., Claim 1 as originally presented) taken as representative, recites at least the following limitations that recite an abstract idea:
A method
generating, from empirical data, a number of factors corresponding to a like number of functions of one or more variables relevant to relationship satisfaction;
approximating the satisfaction that a user of the matching service based on food cravings and has in the relationships that the user forms with others; and,
identifying, with the other user for a meetup plan at a location like the first user.
Claim 2 (i.e., Claim 8 as renumbered – see Office Action Appendix), taken as representative, recites at least the following limitations that recite an abstract idea:
The above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II), in that they recite managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The broadest reasonable interpretation of these limitations for claim 1, includes generating, from empirical data, a number of factors corresponding to a like number of functions of one or more variables relevant to relationship satisfaction; approximating the satisfaction that a user of the matching service based on food cravings and has in the relationships that the user forms with others; and, identifying, with the other user for a meetup plan at a location like the first user. The broadest reasonable interpretation of these limitations for claim 2 (i.e., Claim 8 as renumbered – see Office Action Appendix), includes matching the user with another user having the same food preferences, thus, claim 1 and claim 2 (i.e., Claim 8 as renumbered – see Office Action Appendix) falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they recite managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people.
Accordingly, these claims recite an abstract idea. (Prong 1, Step 2A: YES). The types of identified abstract ideas are considered together as a single abstract idea for analysis purposes.
Prong 2, Step 2A: Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include: (1) Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)), (2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Claim 1 and claim 2 (i.e., Claim 8 as renumbered – see Office Action Appendix), recite i.e., computer/system. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration (see Applicant’s Specification, ⁋[0026]). These elements in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, even in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
As such, under Prong 2 of Step 2A, when considered both individually and as a whole, the limitations of claim 1 and claim 2 (i.e., Claim 8 as renumbered – see Office Action Appendix) are not indicative of integration into a practical application (Prong 2, Step 2A: NO). See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Since claim 1 and claim 2 (i.e., Claim 8 as renumbered – see Office Action Appendix) recites an abstract idea and fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, claim 1 and claim 2 (i.e., Claim 8 as renumbered – see Office Action Appendix) is “directed to” an abstract idea under Step 2A (Step 2A: YES). See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B: The recitation of the additional elements is acknowledged, as identified above with respect to Prong 2 of Step 2A. These additional elements do not add significantly more to the abstract idea for the same reasons as addressed above with respect to Prong 2 of Step 2A.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of for claim 1 and claim 2 (i.e., Claim 8 as renumbered – see Office Action Appendix), i.e., computer/system; thus, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and do not add anything that is not already present when they are considered individually or in combination. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, under Step 2B, there are no meaningful limitations in claim 1 and claim 2 (i.e., Claim 8 as renumbered – see Office Action Appendix) that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B: NO). See MPEP 2106.05.
Accordingly, under the Subject Matter Eligibility test, claim 1 and claim 2 (i.e., Claim 8 as renumbered – see Office Action Appendix) is ineligible.
Regarding i.e., Claims 2-7 and 9-18 as renumbered – see Office Action Appendix; i.e., Claims 2-7 and 9-18 as renumbered – see Office Action Appendix further defines the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for at least the reasons presented above w/ respect to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” as the claims recite further concepts of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) i.e., further features related matching service/matching users. These dependent claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application; as such elements are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts not more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (i.e., claim 2 as renumbered – see Office Action Appendix – “the platform”, claim(s) 5-6 as renumbered – see Office Action Appendix – “dashboard”/ “feed”, claim 7 as renumbered – see Office Action Appendix – “pre-trained algorithms”, and claim 17 as renumbered – see Office Action Appendix “chat within the app”). Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do no not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, the aforementioned claims are not patent-eligible.
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(s) 1 and 2 (i.e., Claims 1-6 and 8-18 as renumbered – see Office Action Appendix) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Anyaoha (US 2022/0076173 A1).
(Regarding Claim 1) [as originally presented Claim 1];
Anyaoha discloses a method to be performed by a computer for operating a matching service ([0010] and [0039] - In some embodiments, the planning module 202 executes a matching algorithm in order to match a user with one or more other users) comprising:
generating, from empirical data ([0039] - The matching algorithm receives as input a user's preferences including a radius for the meetup and/or search, food preferences (e.g., preferred cuisine or dietary restrictions), personal preferences, number of people in the user's party, number of people that the user is interested in meeting, types of meetups, and/or the user's schedule availability), a number of factors corresponding to a like number of functions of one or more variables relevant to relationship satisfaction ([0040] - In some embodiments, the matching algorithm uses the input information to find a match for the user. In one example, the matching algorithm compares the user's input information to information provided by other users that have also requested a meeting or indicated that they are available for meeting... In some embodiments, the matching algorithm scores potential matches, for example, based on an extent of similarity between the preferences and/or interests of the user and the preferences and/or interests of the potential matches);
approximating the satisfaction that a user of the matching service based on food cravings and has in the relationships that the user forms with others ([0039] - The matching algorithm receives as input a user's preferences including a radius for the meetup and/or search, food preferences (e.g., preferred cuisine or dietary restrictions), personal preferences, number of people in the user's party, number of people that the user is interested in meeting, types of meetups, and/or the user's schedule availability. The types of meetups can include a meeting with a local, a networking meeting, a friendship meeting, and a dating meeting.... The types of meetups can include a meeting with a local, a networking meeting, a friendship meeting, and a dating meeting and [0040] – In some embodiments, the matching algorithm uses the input information to find a match for the user. In one example, the matching algorithm compares the user's input information to information provided by other users that have also requested a meeting or indicated that they are available for meeting... In some embodiments, the matching algorithm scores potential matches, for example, based on an extent of similarity between the preferences and/or interests of the user and the preferences and/or interests of the potential matches); and,
identifying, with the other user for a meetup plan at a location like the first user ([0041] - In some embodiments, after the matching algorithm selects a match, the planning module 202 selects a meeting location)
(Regarding Claim 2)
Anyaoha discloses the system to claim 1
Anyaoha further discloses wherein the user can register on the platform ([0026] - In some embodiments, the user database 102 includes profiles of one or more users that have registered or created accounts with the travel planning system 100.)
(Regarding Claim 3)
Anyaoha discloses the system to claim 1
Anyaoha further discloses wherein the registration process involves entering personal details including but not limited to name, email, DOB, and gender ([0026] - Further, a user profile can include user information, such as a full name, an email address, a user type, a phone number, a user biography (“bio”), gender, date of birth, hometown, user interests (e.g., categories of activities that are of interest to the user), and an icebreaker).
(Regarding Claim 4)
Anyaoha discloses the system to claim 1
Anyaoha further discloses wherein the user can setup a profile picture and complete the registration ([0026] and [0052] - ... the user provides a profile image, a short biography (e.g., word or character limited), a user type (e.g., a local and/or a traveler), gender, date of birth, hometown, interests, and an icebreaker. In some examples, one or more of the requested information is optional).
(Regarding Claim 5)
Anyaoha discloses the system to claim 1.
Anyaoha further discloses wherein the user lands on the main dashboard and can see the feed of posted cravings of other users ([0014] - The disclosed travel planning system also allows users to meet people and to bring back home a travel story to share and [0039] - ...food preferences... and [0046] - The media creation module 108 does so for each instance of media that is uploaded. Then, when an itinerary is completed, the media creation module 108 generates media (e.g., a video, a slideshow, a journal, etc.) that highlights the activities performed by the user from the itinerary. In this way, the media creation module 108 converts the user itinerary into a story media that can be either downloaded or share publicly on social media and [0059] - FIG. 3C illustrates additional features of the software application. As shown in FIG. 3C, the software application can include a “Storyline” interface 342, a messaging interface 344, a notification feature 346, and a profile interface 348. In an example, the “storyline” interface 342 allows the user to search for stories (that is, media) created by the user or shared with the user. Additionally, the “storyline” interface 342 allows the user to view details of and play the stories created by the user or shared with the user. Further, the “storyline” interface 342 allows the user to share stories created by the user). As noted a “story”/“storyline” is based on itinerary and can include feed of posted cravings of other users (i.e., meetups involving food).
(Regarding Claim 6)
Anyaoha discloses the system to claim 1.
Anyaoha further discloses wherein the user can post to the feed with selected visibility preferences ([0046] - In this way, the media creation module 108 converts the user itinerary into a story media that can be either downloaded or share publicly on social media)
(Regarding Claim 8) [as originally presented Claim 2]
Anyaoha discloses A system of matching the user with another user having the same food preferences wherein ([0010] and [0039] - In some embodiments, the planning module 202 executes a matching algorithm in order to match a user with one or more other users):
(Regarding Claim 9)
Anyaoha discloses the system to claim 2.
Anyaoha further discloses wherein the user can tap on "Filter Preferences" ([0040] - In some examples, the matching algorithm uses filters or screens to limit the results. The filters include a maximum distance from a current location, food choices (e.g., dietary restrictions), religion, or any other user specified filter).
(Regarding Claim 10)
Anyaoha discloses the system to claim 2.
Anyaoha further discloses where in the user can save their age and gender preferences to match with ([0026] and [0060] - The discovery feature settings include information indicating whom the user is interested in meeting (e.g., user type, gender, age) and a distance within which other users can view the user's profile).
(Regarding Claim 11)
Anyaoha discloses the system to claim 2.
Anyaoha further discloses wherein the user can save their food presence ([0010] and [0039] - The matching algorithm receives as input a user's preferences including a radius for the meetup and/or search, food preferences (e.g., preferred cuisine or dietary restrictions), personal preferences, number of people in the user's party, number of people that the user is interested in meeting, types of meetups, and/or the user's schedule availability).
(Regarding Claim 12)
Anyaoha discloses the system to claim 2.
Anyaoha further discloses wherein the user can see cravings based on selected preferences for viewing cravings ([0039] - ...food preferences... and [0059] - FIG. 3C illustrates additional features of the software application. As shown in FIG. 3C, the software application can include a “Storyline” interface 342, a messaging interface 344, a notification feature 346, and a profile interface 348 and [0060] - Additionally, the user can share the software application with other users, provide feedback, view blocked users, and view information about the software application. The discovery settings include settings associated with the discovery feature of the software application. As described previously, the discovery feature allows users to view the profiles of other nearby users. Both users must activate the feature. The discovery feature settings include information indicating whom the user is interested in meeting (e.g., user type, gender, age) and a distance within which other users can view the user's profile).
(Regarding Claim 13)
Anyaoha discloses the system to claim 2.
Anyaoha further discloses wherein the user can send a craving match request ([0039] - ...food preferences... and [0059] - The messaging interface 344 allows the user to view requests for meetings from other users. The user can accept or reject those meetings. In some examples, if the user rejects a meeting from another user, the user has the option of blocking the other user from viewing their profile or communicating with them. Alternatively, if the user accepts the meeting, the software application automatically sends the user's icebreaker to the other user as a welcome message ... The user can view the profiles of neighbors or can request/accept/send chat requests to the neighbors and [0060] - The discovery settings include settings associated with the discovery feature of the software application. As described previously, the discovery feature allows users to view the profiles of other nearby users. Both users must activate the feature. The discovery feature settings include information indicating whom the user is interested in meeting (e.g., user type, gender, age) and a distance within which other users can view the user's profile.).
(Regarding Claim 14)
Anyaoha discloses the system to claim 2.
Anyaoha further discloses wherein the user sends a craving match request ([0039] - ...food preferences... and [0059] - The messaging interface 344 allows the user to view requests for meetings from other users. The user can accept or reject those meetings. In some examples, if the user rejects a meeting from another user, the user has the option of blocking the other user from viewing their profile or communicating with them. Alternatively, if the user accepts the meeting, the software application automatically sends the user's icebreaker to the other user as a welcome message ... The user can view the profiles of neighbors or can request/accept/send chat requests to the neighbors and [0060] - The discovery settings include settings associated with the discovery feature of the software application. As described previously, the discovery feature allows users to view the profiles of other nearby users. Both users must activate the feature. The discovery feature settings include information indicating whom the user is interested in meeting (e.g., user type, gender, age) and a distance within which other users can view the user's profile.).
(Regarding Claim 15)
Anyaoha discloses the system to claim 2.
Anyaoha further discloses, wherein the request is sent to the craving poster ([0039] - ...food preferences... and [0059] - The messaging interface 344 allows the user to view requests for meetings from other users. The user can accept or reject those meetings. In some examples, if the user rejects a meeting from another user, the user has the option of blocking the other user from viewing their profile or communicating with them. Alternatively, if the user accepts the meeting, the software application automatically sends the user's icebreaker to the other user as a welcome message ... The user can view the profiles of neighbors or can request/accept/send chat requests to the neighbors and [0060] - The discovery settings include settings associated with the discovery feature of the software application. As described previously, the discovery feature allows users to view the profiles of other nearby users. Both users must activate the feature. The discovery feature settings include information indicating whom the user is interested in meeting (e.g., user type, gender, age) and a distance within which other users can view the user's profile.).
(Regarding Claim 16)
Anyaoha discloses the system to claim 2.
Anyaoha further discloses wherein the craving poster receives the request, and the craving poster can accept or decline the request ([0039] - ...food preferences... and [0059] - The user can accept or reject those meetings).
(Regarding Claim 17)
Anyaoha discloses the system to claim 2.
Anyaoha further discloses wherein the accepted user can chat within the app and can arrange a meetup location(restaurant) ([0041] - In some embodiments, the users can select to bypass the planning module 202 and can communicate directly with one another to schedule a meeting).
(Regarding Claim 18)
Anyaoha discloses the system to claim 2.
Anyaoha further discloses wherein the users can meetup and satisfy their food craving ([0039] - ...food preferences... and [0041] - In some embodiments, after the matching algorithm selects a match, the planning module 202 selects a meeting location).
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(s) i.e., 7 as renumbered – see Office Action Appendix is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anyaoha (US 2022/0076173 A1) in view of Montoya et al. (US 9,639,901 B2).
(Regarding Claim 7)
Anyaoha discloses the system to claim 1.
Anyaoha further discloses wherein through the pre-trained algorithms, cravings are visible to users who match the age and gender preferences within a distance ([0040] - The filters include a maximum distance from a current location, food choices (e.g., dietary restrictions), religion, or any other user specified filter and [0060] - The discovery feature settings include information indicating whom the user is interested in meeting (e.g., user type, gender, age) and a distance within which other users can view the user's profile).
Anyaoha further discloses fails to disclose [match] ...within a 50-mile radius.
However, in an analogous art, Montoya teaches [match] ...within a 50-mile radius (col. 5, lines 7-10 - In another embodiment, a user can use rolling settings to determine distance radius to search for friends and potential friends (e.g., from up to 15 yards to 50 miles or more)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine to combine the teachings of Montoya to the distance of Anyaoha to include ...within a 50-mile radius.
One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Montoya to Anyaoha to do so as it provides / allows match a first user and second user in a predetermined geographic location (col. 2, lines 20-23).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See pertinent prior art made of record and not relied noted below, in addition, to those listed on the PTO-892.
Long et al. (US 2017/0098256 A1) discusses the invention relates to various systems and methods for conveying information associated with one or more entertainment and/or social events to one or more potential participants and/or one or more places of business to one or more potential customers. In one embodiment, the present invention relates to a system and method that permits an individual user to find one or more desired entertainment and/or social events based on one or more criteria (e.g., location, date, geographical proximity, etc.). In another embodiment, the present invention permits one or more business users to advertise, interact and/or promote one or more entertainment and/or social events based, and/or their place of business to one or more individual users/customers (Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASFAND M SHEIKH whose telephone number is (571)272-1466. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7a-3p (MDT).
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, JESSICA LEMIEUX can be reached at (571)270-3445. 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.
/ASFAND M SHEIKH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626