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
This action is in response to the amendment filed on 5/15/2026. Claims 1-6, 8-13, 15-22, are pending. Claims 1, 3-6, 8, 10-13, 15, 17-20 are amended. Claims 21-22 have been added. Claims 7, 14 have been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant has argued the previous 101 rejections. Specifically the applicant has argued “The MPEP puts forth the following example of the difference between reciting and merely being based on a judicial exception: MPEP § 2106.04, Subsection II(A)(1). The MPEP states that the ineligible claim "sets forth the principle that force equals mass times acceleration (F=ma) and therefore recites a law of nature exception. Because F=ma represents a mathematical formula, the claim could alternatively be considered as reciting an abstract idea." Id. The eligible claim, on the other hand, "is based on the concept of a lever pivoting on a fulcrum, which involves the natural principles of mechanical advantage and the law of the lever. However, this claim does not recite these natural principles and therefore is not directed to a judicial exception." Id. Applicant respectfully submits that amended independent claims 1, 8, and 15 are like the claim eligible claim and unlike the ineligible claim. For example, amended independent claim 1 describes limitations that do not recite, involve, set forth, or describe a judicial exception, such as "generating a plurality of matches between the first user and respective other users using the metadata tags associated with the first user, wherein the plurality of matches comprise a match between the first user and the second user; receiving, from the first user, a search query requesting a new match, the search query comprising one or more search query parameters comprising a market participant type and a search distance; coordinating displaying, on a first device to the first user, a match page interface comprising: at least a portion of the second user data, a map page populated with a plurality of selectable icons associated with at least a portion of the plurality of matches, and a profile drawer in a collapsed state, the profile drawer configured to expand and display a respective profile picture for a respective match between the first user and another user, wherein each respective match of the at least the portion the plurality of matches satisfies the search query by comparing user metadata of the respective other user with the one or more search query parameters." Amended independent claims 8 and 15 recite similar limitations. Much like the eligible claim in MPEP 2106, claims 1, 8, and 15 do not recite any mathematical relationships, formulas, or calculations; mental processes that can be performed in the human mind, or methods of organizing human activity. Instead, claims 1, 8, and 15 contain limitations that are merely based on or involve the abstract idea.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. The teeter-totter claim recites “an elongated member pivotally attached to a base member, having seats and handles attached at opposing sides of the elongated member.” Every word of that claims describes a tangible physical component and its physical relationship to other components. A person could build the clamed device, and it would infringe the claim, without that person ever invoking, calculating, or even being aware of the law of the lever or the concept of mechanical advantage. Claims 1, 8, and 15, are not analogous because performing the abstract idea is how the claim is practiced. The claims recite an abstract process, not one that is merely based on an abstract concept while claiming something structurally separate from it. The limitations of each respective match satisfying a query by comparing user metadata is a comparison and evaluation, an observation and judgement of the type expressly identified as a mental process.
The applicant has argued “Similar to the claims in Enfish and Unilock, amended independent claims 1, 8, and 15 are directed to a specific improvement in computer functionality that reduces latency and improves processing times. For example, amended independent claim 1 recites, in part, "generating a plurality of matches between the first user and respective other users using the metadata tags associated with the first user, wherein the plurality of matches comprise a match between the first user and the second user; receiving, from the first user, a search query requesting a new match, the search query comprising one or more search query parameters comprising a market participant type and a search distance; coordinating displaying, on a first device to the first user, a match page interface comprising: at least a portion of the second user data, a map page populated with a plurality of selectable icons associated with at least a portion of the plurality of matches, and a profile drawer in a collapsed state, the profile drawer configured to expand and display a respective profile picture for a respective match between the first user and another user, wherein each respective match of the at least the portion the plurality of matches satisfies the search query by comparing user metadata of the respective other user with the one or more search query parameters." Amended independent claims 8 and 15 recite similar limitations, which include a specific improvement in computer capability that is recited in the Specification.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. In Enfish the reduction in search time and memory requirements followed directly from the claimed structure. Similarly in Unilock, the claimed data field for polling as part of the inquiry was itself the mechanism that eliminated the need for the primary station to alternate between separate polling and inquiry messages which reduced latency because of the claimed message structure. The applicant has quoted the entirety of claim 1’s limitations and has asserted that the quoted language includes an improvement in computer capability without identifying which specific words in the quotation perform the role that the self-referential table in Enfish or the polling data field within the inquiry message in Unilock. Reciting that matches are generated , that a search query is received, and that results are displayed on a map in a drawer does not by its own terms product any reduction in latency or processing time. Nothing in the claim language forecloses the inefficient implementation which is why Enfish and Unilock are distinguishable. The applicant supports the specific improvement asserted by citing the specification ¶ 23, which states may limitations. The passage is a list of potential advantages of the invention generally, not a description of a specific algorithm, data structure, or protocol modification tied to the generating, receiving, or coordinating displaying steps actually recited in claim 1. The specification language is not incorporated into the claims. A specification’s argued possible (may) benefits cannot substitute for a corresponding claim limitation that actually recites the technical means.
The applicant has argued “In addition and similar to the claims in Core Wireless and Data Engine Techs., amended independent claims 1, 8, and 15 are directed to a specific improvement in computer UIs that improve the functioning of a computer. For example, amended independent claim 1 recites, in part, "generating a plurality of matches between the first user and respective other users using the metadata tags associated with the first user, wherein the plurality of matches comprise a match between the first user and the second user; receiving, from the first user, a search query requesting a new match, the search query comprising one or more search query parameters comprising a market participant type and a search distance; coordinating displaying, on a first device to the first user, a match page interface comprising: at least a portion of the second user data, a map page populated with a plurality of selectable icons associated with at least a portion of the plurality of matches, and a profile drawer in a collapsed state, the profile drawer configured to expand and display a respective profile picture for a respective match between the first user and another user, wherein each respective match of the at least the portion the plurality of matches satisfies the search query by comparing user metadata of the respective other user with the one or more search query parameters." Amended independent claims 8 and 15 recite similar limitations, which include a specific improvement in computer capability.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. The eligible claims in Core Wireless and Data Engine recited a particular manner of accessing or organizing information. In Core Wireless, the claim was eligible because it recited a specific technical constraint on when certain information became available to the user. In Data Engine Technologies the eligible claims recited a specific mechanism that provided a specific solution to a problem. In both cases the claim itself recited the technical solution. The claim language that the applicant has quoted does not recite any comparably specific display mechanism. It recites only that certain content is displayed within named UI containers. The recited collapsed state and configured to expand language, by itself describes a widely-known, generic UI interaction pattern rather than a specific technical solution to an existing problem. Both Core Wireless and Data Engine were eligible because the Federal Circuit could identify a specific problem in the prior art that the claimed interface solved and a claimed invention that solved that problem. The applicant has quoted the full claim without identifying which specific words perform the role that the un-launched state/ limited list language performed in Core Wireless, or the labeled tab language performed in Data Engine Technologies.
The applicant has argued “Amended independent claim 1 recites, in part, "generating a plurality of matches between the first user and respective other users using the metadata tags associated with the first user, wherein the plurality of matches comprise a match between the first user and the second user; receiving, from the first user, a search query requesting a new match, the search query comprising one or more search query parameters comprising a market participant type and a search distance; coordinating displaying, on a first device to the first user, a match page interface comprising: at least a portion of the second user data, a map page populated with a plurality of selectable icons associated with at least a portion of the plurality of matches, and a profile drawer in a collapsed state, the profile drawer configured to expand and display a respective profile picture for a respective match between the first user and another user, wherein each respective match of the at least the portion the plurality of matches satisfies the search query by comparing user metadata of the respective other user with the one or more search query parameters." Amended independent claims 8 and 15 recite similar limitations. These limitations, when taken individually meaningfully limit the claims in a way that qualifies as significantly more.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant has not identified which specific limitations, considered individually, are the additional elements apart from the judicial exception. The additional elements analysis requires a two step process of identifying the specific limitations that recite the judicial exception and then identify any additional elements beyond that exception. The applicant has stated the entire claim passage including the generating, receiving, and comparing steps that constitute the abstract idea. An argument that that abstract idea meaningfully limits does not qualify as significantly more. When the additional elements are pulled from the abstract idea, they consist only of generic devices and generic display containers, which do not meaningfully limit the claim. An additional element meaningfully limits a judicial exception when it narrows the claim to a particular non-preemptive application involving a specific technical means. The applicant is merely claiming displaying the output of an abstract idea matching/comparison process on a generic map with generic icons and a generic expandable drawer is an example of insignificant application of an exception via a generic display hardware and software. The applicant has not shown that the quoted limitations individually or otherwise meaningfully limit the claimed abstract idea in a way that integrates it into a practical application.
The applicant has argued “Amended independent claim 1 recites, in part, "generating a plurality of matches between the first user and respective other users using the metadata tags associated with the first user, wherein the plurality of matches comprise a match between the first user and the second user; receiving, from the first user, a search query requesting a new match, the search query comprising one or more search query parameters comprising a market participant type and a search distance; coordinating displaying, on a first device to the first user, a match page interface comprising: at least a portion of the second user data, a map page populated with a plurality of selectable icons associated with at least a portion of the plurality of matches, and a profile drawer in a collapsed state, the profile drawer configured to expand and display a respective profile picture for a respective match between the first user and another user, wherein each respective match of the at least the portion the plurality of matches satisfies the search query by comparing user metadata of the respective other user with the one or more search query parameters." Amended independent claims 8 and 15 recite similar limitations. These limitations, when taken individually and as a whole, recite matter that cannot be considered well-understood, routine, or conventional because they have never been used widely in previous systems.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant’s assertion is conclusory and unsupported by any evidence of record. The applicant’s arguments as a hole does not overcome the conventionality of the individual elements because the applicant has not identified any unconventional aspect of the specific combination beyond the sum of its individually conventional parts. The rejection under Step 2B does not require that an identical combination appear in a single prior art reference, it requires an assessment of whether the combination reflects an unconventional arrangement of components.
Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive. The previous 101 rejection is maintained and updated below.
Applicant’s arguments with regards to the previous 103 rejection are found persuasive in view of applicant’s amendments. The closest prior art Anderson et al. (US 20120190386 A1) discloses data transmission such items as information, advertisements, offers, and profile. Zhao et al. (US 20140032363 A1) discloses providing an online trading platform to match potential sellers and buyers and allow a seller and buyer to negotiate a deal in a limited time frame. The closest prior art does not disclose the generating of a plurality of matches using all the first user’s metadata tags, a search query comprising structured parameters directed to a market participant type and a search distance, and a match page interface integrating second user data, a map page populated with a plurality of selectable icons associated with at least a portion of the plurality of matches, and a profile drawer in a collapsed state, the profile drawer configured to expand and display a respective profile picture for a respective match between the first user and another user, wherein each respective match of the at least the portion the plurality of matches satisfies the search query by comparing user metadata of the respective other user with the one or more search query parameters. It is not in one limitation but in the combination of limitations that the previous 103 rejection is withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8, 15 objected to because of the following informalities: the applicant has amended the claims to include the language of “wherein each respective match of the at least the portion the plurality of matches satisfies the search query by comparing user metadata of the respective other user with the one or more search query parameters.” It appears as though the applicant is missing a the word “of” in the phrase “at least the portion the plurality.” Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-6, 8-13, 15-22 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-6, 21-22 are directed to a method, claims 8-13 are directed to a system, and claims 15-20 are directed to an article of manufacture. Therefore, claims 1-6, 8-13, 15-22 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite collecting attribute information about market participants, comparing that information to identify candidate matches, filtering those matches against a requesting user’s criteria, presenting the qualifying matches for the requesting user’s review, and initiating communication once the user indicates approval of a match, constituting an abstract idea based on “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” related to managing personal behavior or interactions between individuals including social activities. Claim 1 recites abstract limitations including “receiving first user data comprising… tags associated with a first user, wherein the ….tags associated with the first user comprise a type tag, an interest tag, a location tag, closing data, sales data, buyer feedback, and seller feedback; receiving second user data comprising… tags associated with a second user; generating a plurality of matches between the first user and respective other users using the ….tags associated with the first user, wherein the plurality of matches comprise a match between the first user and the second user; receiving, from the first user, a search query requesting a new match, the search query comprising one or more search query parameters comprising a market participant type and a search distance; at least a portion of the second user data, a map… associated with at least a portion of the plurality of matches, and …a respective profile picture for a respective match between the first user and another user, wherein each respective match of the at least the portion the plurality of matches satisfies the search query by comparing user metadata of the respective other user with the one or more search query parameters; receiving a confirm match signal from the first user …; and in response to receiving the confirm match signal….” Claim 8 recites the abstract limitations including “that, in response to execution …, … perform operations comprising: receiving first user data comprising… tags associated with a first user, wherein the ….tags associated with the first user comprise a type tag, an interest tag, a location tag, closing data, sales data, buyer feedback, and seller feedback; receiving second user data comprising… tags associated with a second user; generating a plurality of matches between the first user and respective other users using the ….tags associated with the first user, wherein the plurality of matches comprise a match between the first user and the second user; receiving, from the first user, a search query requesting a new match, the search query comprising one or more search query parameters comprising a market participant type and a search distance; at least a portion of the second user data, a map… associated with at least a portion of the plurality of matches, and …a respective profile picture for a respective match between the first user and another user, wherein each respective match of the at least the portion the plurality of matches satisfies the search query by comparing user metadata of the respective other user with the one or more search query parameters; receiving a confirm match signal from the first user …; and in response to receiving the confirm match signal….” Claim 15 recites abstract limitations including “receiving first user data comprising… tags associated with a first user, wherein the ….tags associated with the first user comprise a type tag, an interest tag, a location tag, closing data, sales data, buyer feedback, and seller feedback; receiving second user data comprising… tags associated with a second user; generating a plurality of matches between the first user and respective other users using the ….tags associated with the first user, wherein the plurality of matches comprise a match between the first user and the second user; receiving, from the first user, a search query requesting a new match, the search query comprising one or more search query parameters comprising a market participant type and a search distance; at least a portion of the second user data, a map… associated with at least a portion of the plurality of matches, and …a respective profile picture for a respective match between the first user and another user, wherein each respective match of the at least the portion the plurality of matches satisfies the search query by comparing user metadata of the respective other user with the one or more search query parameters; receiving a confirm match signal from the first user …; and in response to receiving the confirm match signal….” These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, but for the language of “device,” and for claims 8 and 15 “processor”, covers an abstract idea but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “device,” and for claims 8 and 15 “processor”, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from being interpreted as an abstract idea. For example, with the exception of the “using the at least one processor” language, the claim steps in the context of the claim encompass an abstract idea directed to a “Mental Process” and “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.”
Dependent claims 2, 9, 16, further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration.
Dependent claims 3-6, 10-13, 17-23, will be evaluated under Step 2A, Prong 2 below.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 1 is a method comprising “metadata tags, a display, a first device to the first user, a match page interface, map page, selectable icons, profile drawer, first device, opening a communication channel between the first device and a second device.” Claim 8 is a system that recites limitations performed “a processor; and a tangible, non-transitory memory configured to communicate with the processor, the tangible, non-transitory memory having instructions stored thereon, in response to execution by the processor, cause the processor, metadata tags, coordinating displaying, a match page interface, map page, selectable icons, profile drawer a match page interface comprising at least a portion of the second user data, the first device, communication channel between the first device and a second device.” Claim 15 further recites the additional elements of “an article of manufacture including a non-transitory, tangible computer readable storage medium having instructions stored thereon that, in response to execution by a computer based system, cause the computer based system, metadata tags, coordinating displaying, a first device to the first user, a map page, selectable icons, profile drawer, a match page interface comprising at least a portion of the second user data, first device, communication channel between the first device and a second device.” These additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim employs generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment. This type of generally linking is not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements of the independent claims, when considered both individually and in combination, are not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application.
Dependent claims 2, 9, 16, further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration, which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claims 3, 10, 17, further defines the additional element of “search and settlings page.” This limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Dependent claims 4, 11, 18, further defines the additional element of “metadata tags.” This limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Dependents claims 5, 12, 19, introduces further features of the “selectable icons.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependents claims 6, 13, 20, introduces further features of the “the first device.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 21, introduces the further feature of “starting a communication process in response to receiving the confirm match signal from the first user on the first device and the confirm match input from the second user on the second device.” This limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 22, introduces the further feature of “auto-populating one or more of a location tag, a type tag, or an interest tag of the metadata tags associated with the first user based on data received by a data handler module from one or more external data sources, wherein the one or more of the location tag, the type tag, or the interest tag is auto-populated based on a frequency distribution.” This limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements of the dependent claims, when considered both individually and in the context of the independent claims, are not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application.
Step 2B: Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 do not comprise anything significantly more than the judicial exception. As can be seen above with respect to Step 2A, Prong 2, Claim 1 is a method comprising “metadata tags, a display, a first device to the first user, a match page interface, map page, selectable icons, profile drawer, first device, opening a communication channel between the first device and a second device.” Claim 8 is a system that recites limitations performed “a processor; and a tangible, non-transitory memory configured to communicate with the processor, the tangible, non-transitory memory having instructions stored thereon, in response to execution by the processor, cause the processor, metadata tags, coordinating displaying, a match page interface, map page, selectable icons, profile drawer, a match page interface comprising at least a portion of the second user data, the first device, communication channel between the first device and a second device.” Claim 15 further recites the additional elements of “an article of manufacture including a non-transitory, tangible computer readable storage medium having instructions stored thereon that, in response to execution by a computer based system, cause the computer based system, metadata tags, coordinating displaying, a first device to the first user, a map page, selectable icons, profile drawer, a match page interface comprising at least a portion of the second user data, first device, communication channel between the first device and a second device.” These additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim employs generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment. This type of generally linking is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements of the independent claims, when considered both individually and in combination, do not comprise anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 2, 9, 16, further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration, which is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 3, 10, 17, further defines the additional element of “search and settlings page.” This limitation is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Dependent claims 4, 11, 18, further defines the additional element of “metadata tags.” This limitation is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Dependents claims 5, 12, 19, introduces further features of the “selectable icons.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependents claims 6, 13, 20, introduces further features of the “the first device.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 21, introduces the further feature of “starting a communication process in response to receiving the confirm match signal from the first user on the first device and the confirm match input from the second user on the second device.” This limitation is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 22, introduces the further feature of “auto-populating one or more of a location tag, a type tag, or an interest tag of the metadata tags associated with the first user based on data received by a data handler module from one or more external data sources, wherein the one or more of the location tag, the type tag, or the interest tag is auto-populated based on a frequency distribution.” This limitation is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements of the dependent claims, when considered both individually and in the context of the independent claims, are not anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Accordingly, claims 1-6, 8-13, 15-22 are rejected under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-6, 8-13, 15-22 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. The applicant has amended the claims to include language of “coordinating displaying, on a first device to the first user, a match page interface comprising: at least a portion of the second user data, a map page populated with a plurality of selectable icons associated with at least a portion of the plurality of matches.” Looking at the originally filed disclosure the matching page (¶ 42, Fig. 7) is a completely separate page from the map page (¶ 44, Fig. 9A/9B). The applicant does not have support in the originally filed disclosure for a match page to comprise a map page.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-13, 15-22 are ejected 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 claims 1, 8, 15, the phrase "first user", “the second user”, “the respective other users” and “another user” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether or not the second user, respective other users, and another user are all the same user or if there are a plurality of extra users. Clarification is required.
Claims 3, 10, 17, recites the limitations of “through a search and settings page configured to receive the market participant type, the location tags, the type tags, the interest tags.” Although the independent claim has similar language, in the independent claims the language is singular “type tag, interest tag, location tag.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 3, 10, 17, recites the limitations of “the property value setting.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 5, 12, 19, recites the limitation "the map page interface.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 22, recites the limitation " auto-populating one or more of a location tag, a type tag, or an interest tag of the metadata tags associated with the first use.” Because there is a previous mention to the tags in claim 1, it is unclear if these are additional (or new tags) or the same ones that are claimed in claim 1.
The dependent claims inherit the rejection of the claims from which they depend.
Pertinent prior art includes Woddi et al. (US 20170039578 A1) which discloses optimizing the order of search result. Lenahan et al. (US 20140100985 A1) which discloses scanning social networking sites to find keywords indicative of a person's desire or need to sell or buy a product and connect potential sellers and buyers. Thomas (US 20120016765 A1) which discloses providing an automated platform to enable intellectual property transactions. Anderson et al. (US 20120190386 A1) discloses data transmission such items as information, advertisements, offers, and profile. Zhao et al. (US 20140032363 A1) discloses providing an online trading platform to match potential sellers and buyers and allow a seller and buyer to negotiate a deal in a limited time frame.
Conclusion
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 JAMIE H AUSTIN whose telephone number is (571)272-7363. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, Friday 7am-2pm.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached at (571) 270 5389. 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.
JAMIE H. AUSTIN
Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/JAMIE H AUSTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights