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 .
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 11 recites the limitation "the user matching" in line 1 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears claim 11 should be dependent upon claim 10 to provide proper antecedent basis.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the user matching" in line 1 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 12 also depends upon claim 13 which is improper.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the user matching" in line 1 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 13 also depends upon itself which is improper.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the one or more user profiles" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 is 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. Claim 20 recites a “second device configured for: establishing a network connection with the second device”. It seems it should read “establishing a network connection with the first device”.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the one of more devices" in line 8 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 16, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lor et al., US Patent Number 9,055,390 (hereinafter Lor).
Regarding claims 1, 19, and 20, Lor discloses a method programmed in a non-transitory memory of a device comprising: detecting one or more nearby devices [col. 3: lines 37-38]; generating a network [col. 3: lines 38-40]; and establishing a network connection with the one or more devices by detecting an indication of a desire to join the network on the one or more devices, wherein establishing the network connection with the one or more devices is based on proximity or one or more shared interests [col. 3: lines 40-49].
Regarding claim 2, Lor discloses wherein establishing the network connection with the one or more devices is by detecting a wireless signal [col. 3: lines 38-44].
Regarding claim 4, Lor discloses wherein the network is generated manually [col. 4: lines 30-32].
Regarding claim 16, Lor discloses employing machine learning to parse a group of people into smaller groups of people based on factors including: demographics, preferences, location data, or spin actions [col. 5: lines 4-14].
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6, 15, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lochan et al., US Patent Application Publication Number 2019/0166195 (hereinafter Lochan).
Regarding claims 1, 19, and 20, Lochan discloses a method programmed in a non-transitory memory of a device comprising: detecting one or more nearby devices; generating a network; and establishing a network connection with the one or more devices by detecting an indication of a desire to join the network on the one or more devices, wherein establishing the network connection with the one or more devices is based on proximity or one or more shared interests [paragraphs 0007, 0079].
Regarding claim 2, Lochan discloses wherein establishing the network connection with the one or more devices is by detecting a wireless signal [paragraph 0007].
Regarding claim 6, Lochan discloses enabling targeted advertising and personalized content delivery within the network [paragraph 0040].
Regarding claim 15, Lochan discloses implementing artificial intelligence to provide recommendations to a user [paragraphs 0040, 0083].
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-14, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Schilit et al., US Patent Number 9,215,286 (hereinafter Schilit).
Regarding claims 1, 19, and 20, Schilit discloses a method programmed in a non-transitory memory of a device comprising: detecting one or more nearby devices; generating a network; and establishing a network connection with the one or more devices by detecting an indication of a desire to join the network on the one or more devices, wherein establishing the network connection with the one or more devices is based on proximity or one or more shared interests [col. 12: lines 28-46].
Regarding claim 2, Schilit discloses wherein establishing the network connection with the one or more devices is by detecting a wireless signal [col. 2: lines 27-31].
Regarding claim 3, Schilit discloses wherein establishing the network connection with the one or more devices is by detecting a wave/spin action, wherein the wave/spin action of the device includes a movement of the one or more devices including displaying a graphic on the one or more devices [col. 11: lines 9-15].
Regarding claim 4, Schilit discloses wherein the network is generated manually [col. 11: line 64 – col. 12: line 14]
Regarding claim 5, Schilit discloses wherein the network is generated automatically using artificial intelligence based on user preferences, behaviors or location [col. 12: lines 38-41].
Regarding claim 8, Schilit suggests utilizing satellite communication to establish the network connection [col 8: line 61 – col. 9: line 5 wherein various communication modalities are disclosed].
Regarding claim 9, Schilit discloses implementing privacy settings, wherein the privacy settings take into account a number of people on the network [col. 16: lines 27-39].
Regarding claim 10, Schilit discloses implementing artificial intelligence to perform user matching, including adding a matched user to the network [col. 6: lines 10-22, 38-46].
Regarding claim 11, Schilit discloses wherein the user matching is based on interests, compatible personalities, contextual personas and identities within an application [col. 6: lines 43-46; col. 16: lines 12-39].
Regarding claim 12, Schilit discloses the user matching is based on user mindset [col. 6: lines 43-46; col. 16: lines 12-39].
Regarding claim 13, Schilit discloses wherein the user matching combines personality matching and contextual matching [col. 6: lines 43-46; col. 16: lines 12-39].
Regarding claim 14, Schilit discloses managing one or more user personas enabling a user to switch between one or more user profiles [col. 16: lines 27-39; col. 18: lines 37-39].
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) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lor in view of Domangue et al., US Patent Application Publication Number 2018/198755 (hereinafter Domangue).
Regarding claim 7, Lor does not specifically disclose wherein generating the network comprises drawing a boundary on a map, wherein only devices within the boundary are able to connect to the network.
However, Domangue teaches this limitation [paragraph 0605]. Further, the boundary automatically becoming a circular boundary based on the drawn boundary is an obvious modification in order to generate a succinct geofence with a constant radius. Before the effective filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lor to include the teaching of Domangue. The motivation for this modification would have been to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lor in view of Wright, US Patent Application Publication Number 2023/0334525(hereinafter Wright).
Regarding claim 17, Lor does not specifically disclose generating a pop up store based on a current location of the device. However, Wright teaches this limitation [paragraph 0101]. Before the effective filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lor to include the teaching of Wright. The motivation for this modification would have been to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lor in view of Tetreault et al., US Patent Application Publication Number 2017/0257329 (hereinafter Tetreault).
Regarding claim 18, Lor does not specifically disclose implementing artificial intelligence for detection and moderation of hate speech, dangerous drugs, human trafficking and bullying. However, Tetreault teaches this limitation [paragraph 0036]. Before the effective filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lor to include the teaching of Tetreault. The motivation for this modification would have been to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Carter et al., US Patent Application Publication Number 2021/0056536, disclose a short range communication enabled object for facilitating proximity based interaction with at least one electronic device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIKA WASHINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-7841. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday.
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, Kathy Wang-Hurst can be reached at 571-270-5371. 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.
/EAW/
February 4, 2026
/ERIKA A WASHINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2644