DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 30 August 2023. This communication is the first action on merits. As of the date of this communication no Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) has been filed on behalf of this case. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-5 are original / previously presented.
Claims 1-5 are currently pending and have been examined.
Pro Se
It appears the inventor(s) filed the current application pro se (i.e., without the benefit of representation by a registered patent practitioner). While inventors named as applicants in a patent application may prosecute the application pro se, lack of familiarity with patent examination practice and procedure may result in missed opportunities in obtaining optimal protection for the invention disclosed. The inventor(s) may wish to secure the services of a registered patent practitioner to prosecute the application, because the value of a patent is largely dependent upon skilled preparation and prosecution. The Office cannot aid in selecting a patent practitioner.
A listing of registered patent practitioners is available at https://oedci.uspto.gov/OEDCI/. Applicants may also obtain a list of registered patent practitioners located in their area by writing to Mail Stop OED, Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.
Priority
The application 18/458,617 filed on 30 August 2023 claims priority from US provisional application 63/513,098 filed on 11 July 2023.
Drawings
The drawings submitted on 14 December 2023 have been acknowledged by the Office.
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 2 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 2:
Claim 2 recites the limitation "that organization" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear which particular organization this is referring to. For the purpose of examination, the Office will interpret this as referring to “a subscribing organization”.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the subscribing organization" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear which subscribing organization (of the subscribing organizations) this is referring to. For the purpose of examination, the Office will interpret this as referring to ‘that organization’ in line 2.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-5:
Claims 1-5 are each directed to an “app", without claiming any structure. According to the specification the ‘app’ is a mobile application (see Applicant Specification ¶[0003]), i.e. a program. Functional descriptive material such as a computer program must be structurally and functionally interrelated with a medium to allow its intended uses to be realized. Accordingly, claims directed to software per se are not statutory subject matter. In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1361, 31 USPQ2d 1754, 1760 (Fed. Cir. 1994). See MPEP § 2106.01 for further guidance and discussion on computer-related non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1:
Step 1:
Claim 1 recites an app. The claim does not recite a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, and do not satisfy Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Framework in MPEP 2106 and the 2019 Patent Examination Guidelines (PEG). However, the claim can be amended to fall within a statutory category. See MPEP 2106.04(II). Analysis proceeds to Step 2A prong one. See MPEP 2106.03(II).
Step 2A – Prong One:
Claim 1 recite an abstract idea. Independent claim 1 recites: user profiles where each user has access to a muting capability in which a user can mute his profile and cancel mute at any time. The claim as a whole recites certain methods of organizing human activities. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II).
First, the limitations of muting and cancelling muting (e.g. user profiles where each user has access to a muting capability in which a user can mute his profile and cancel mute at any time) are certain methods of organizing human activities. For instance, these limitations represent the sub-groupings of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, social activities). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C). For example, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people includes a user muting his profile, a user cancelling muting at any time; social activities includes a user muting his profile, a user cancelling muting at any time. The presence of generic computer components such as an app does not preclude the steps from reciting certain methods of organizing human activities, since the number of people involved in the activities is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping and instead it is based on whether an activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g. managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, social activities) regardless of the recitation of generic computer components or other machinery in its ordinary capacity, then it falls within the ‘Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity’ grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Analysis proceeds to Step 2A Prong Two.
Step 2A – Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). First, claim 1 as a whole merely describes how to generally ‘apply’ the concept of certain methods of organizing human activities in a computer environment. The claimed computer components (i.e. an app) are recited at a high-level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform an existing manual process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic / general purpose computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2016.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computers / general computer components (an app). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. Hence, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05. As discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using an app to perform muting and cancelling muting amounts to no more than mere instructions to ‘apply’ the exception using generic computers. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e. mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(f). See the Applicant’s specification background ¶[0003] describing the additional element of mobile applications, and ¶[0014] describing the implementation of the invention as an app at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
The claims do not improve another technology or technical field. Instead the claims represent a generic implementation of organizing human activities ‘applied’ by generic / general purpose computers. The claims do not provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the user of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. At best, the claims are more directed towards solving a business / economic / entrepreneurial problem (i.e. how to selectively prevent and resume communication channels between parties), that is tangentially associated with a technology element (e.g. computers), rather than solving a technology based problem. See MPEP 2106.05(a). The claims do not improve the functioning of a computer itself. The claims are more directed towards improving a business / economic / entrepreneurial process rather than improving a computer outside of a business use, i.e. using computers a tool. The claims do not apply the judicial exception with or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction to a particular article to a different state or thing. The claims do not add a specific limitation other than what is well understood, routine, and conventional in a way that confines the claim to a particular useful application.
Viewing the claim limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at each of the claim limitations individually. Note that the combination of limitations and claim elements add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately, simply reciting implementation as performed by using generic computers / general computer components, see Alice (2014), and does not provide a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of various computer components to achieve a technical improvement, see BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC (2016).
Therefore claim 1, and all limitations taken both individually and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor do they include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 1 is ineligible.
Claim 2:
Step 1:
Claim 2 recites an app. The claim does not recite a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, and do not satisfy Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Framework in MPEP 2106 and the 2019 Patent Examination Guidelines (PEG). However, the claim can be amended to fall within a statutory category. See MPEP 2106.04(II). Analysis proceeds to Step 2A prong one. See MPEP 2106.03(II).
Step 2A – Prong One:
Claim 2 recite an abstract idea. Independent claim 2 recites: upon receipt of an arrest alert of a user from that organization, inform the subscribing organization of the arrest. The claim as a whole recites certain methods of organizing human activities. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II).
First, the limitation of informing (e.g. upon receipt of an arrest alert of a user from that organization, inform the subscribing organization of the arrest) is certain methods of organizing human activities. For instance, this limitations represents the sub-groupings of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, social activities, following rules or instructions). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C). For example, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people includes informing the subscribing organization of the arrest; social activities includes informing the subscribing organization of the arrest; and following rules or instructions includes informing the subscribing organization of the arrest upon receipt of the arrest alert. The presence of generic computer components such as an app does not preclude the steps from reciting certain methods of organizing human activities, since the number of people involved in the activities is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping and instead it is based on whether an activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g. managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, social activities, following rules or instructions) regardless of the recitation of generic computer components or other machinery in its ordinary capacity, then it falls within the ‘Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity’ grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Analysis proceeds to Step 2A Prong Two.
Step 2A – Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). First, claim 1 as a whole merely describes how to generally ‘apply’ the concept of certain methods of organizing human activities in a computer environment. The claimed computer components (i.e. an app) are recited at a high-level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform an existing manual process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic / general purpose computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2016.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Next, the additional element of maintaining (e.g. An app that maintains data of its subscribing organizations and the users within each organization) is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of storing data for subsequent informing), and amounts to mere electronic record keeping / storing data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and not a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the app (a general computer component) is only being used as a tool in the maintaining, which is also not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f). Note that there are no particular technical steps regarding maintaining more than using computers as a tool in their ordinary capacity (i.e. to store data). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Next, the additional element of receipt / receiving (e.g. receipt of an arrest alert of a user from that organization) is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of receiving / gathering data for subsequent informing), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and not a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g). Note that there are no particular technical steps regarding receipt / receiving more than using computers as a tool to perform an otherwise manual process. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computers / general computer components (an app); and adding high-level extra-solution and/or post-solution activities (data storage, data gathering). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. Hence, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05. As discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using an app to perform informing the subscribing organization is no more than mere instructions to ‘apply’ the exception using generic computers. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e. mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(f). See the Applicant’s specification background ¶[0003] describing the additional element of mobile applications, and ¶[0014] describing the implementation of the invention as an app at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
As discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements regarding the maintaining are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of storing data for subsequent informing), and amount to mere storing data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e. adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not provide integration into a practical application in Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The use of the computer (i.e. app) in these steps merely represents using a generic / general purpose computer as a tool, and is not indicative of an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, these maintaining steps are also claimed at a high level of generality, and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. data storage) representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular electronic record keeping (Alice), storing and retrieving information in memory (Versata; OIP Techs). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
As discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements regarding the receipt / receiving are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for subsequent informing), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e. adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not provide integration into a practical application in Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Furthermore, these receipt / receiving steps are also claimed at a high level of generality, and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. data gathering) representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), sending messages over a network (OIP Techs), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
The claims do not improve another technology or technical field. Instead the claims represent a generic implementation of organizing human activities ‘applied’ by generic / general purpose computers, and using general computer components in extra-solution capacities such as data gathering / data storage. The claims do not provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the user of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. At best, the claims are more directed towards solving a business / economic / entrepreneurial problem (i.e. how to inform parties when arrest information is known), that is tangentially associated with a technology element (e.g. computers), rather than solving a technology based problem. See MPEP 2106.05(a). The claims do not improve the functioning of a computer itself. The claims are more directed towards improving a business / economic / entrepreneurial process rather than improving a computer outside of a business use, i.e. using computers a tool. The claims do not apply the judicial exception with or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction to a particular article to a different state or thing. The claims do not add a specific limitation other than what is well understood, routine, and conventional in a way that confines the claim to a particular useful application.
Viewing the claim limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at each of the claim limitations individually. Note that the combination of limitations and claim elements add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately, simply reciting implementation as performed by using generic computers / general computer components, see Alice (2014), and does not provide a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of various computer components to achieve a technical improvement, see BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC (2016).
Therefore claim 2, and all limitations taken both individually and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor do they include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 2 is ineligible.
Claim 3:
Step 1:
Claim 3 recites an app. The claim does not recite a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, and do not satisfy Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Framework in MPEP 2106 and the 2019 Patent Examination Guidelines (PEG). However, the claim can be amended to fall within a statutory category. See MPEP 2106.04(II). Analysis proceeds to Step 2A prong one. See MPEP 2106.03(II).
Step 2A – Prong One:
Claim 3 recite an abstract idea. Independent claim 3 recites: walking companionship can be requested and accepted by entering in location and destination, and accepting responses, as with a ride share. The claim as a whole recites certain methods of organizing human activities. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II).
First, the limitations of requesting, accepting, and entering (e.g. walking companionship can be requested and accepted by entering in location and destination, and accepting responses, as with a ride share) are certain methods of organizing human activities. For instance, these limitations represent the sub-groupings of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, social activities, following rules or instructions). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C). For example, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people includes walking companionship can be requested and accepted by entering in location and destination, and accepting responses, as with a ride share; social activities includes walking companionship can be requested and accepted, and accepting responses, as with a ride share; and following rules or instructions includes walking companionship can be requested and accepted by entering in location and destination, and accepting responses, as with a ride share. The presence of generic computer components such as an app, and menu does not preclude the steps from reciting certain methods of organizing human activities, since the number of people involved in the activities is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping and instead it is based on whether an activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g. managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, social activities, following rules or instructions) regardless of the recitation of generic computer components or other machinery in its ordinary capacity, then it falls within the ‘Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity’ grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Analysis proceeds to Step 2A Prong Two.
Step 2A – Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). First, claim 1 as a whole merely describes how to generally ‘apply’ the concept of certain methods of organizing human activities in a computer environment. The claimed computer components (i.e. app, menu) are recited at a high-level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform an existing manual process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic / general purpose computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2016.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computers / general computer components (app, menu). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. Hence, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05. As discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using an app to perform requesting, accepting, and entering amounts to no more than mere instructions to ‘apply’ the exception using generic computers. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e. mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(f). See the Applicant’s specification background ¶[0003] describing the additional element of mobile applications, and ¶[0014] describing the implementation of the invention as an app at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
The claims do not improve another technology or technical field. Instead the claims represent a generic implementation of organizing human activities ‘applied’ by generic / general purpose computers. The claims do not provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the user of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. At best, the claims are more directed towards solving a business / economic / entrepreneurial problem (i.e. how to facilitate walking companionship / ride share requesting and accepting), that is tangentially associated with a technology element (e.g. computers), rather than solving a technology based problem. See MPEP 2106.05(a). The claims do not improve the functioning of a computer itself. The claims are more directed towards improving a business / economic / entrepreneurial process rather than improving a computer outside of a business use, i.e. using computers a tool. The claims do not apply the judicial exception with or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction to a particular article to a different state or thing. The claims do not add a specific limitation other than what is well understood, routine, and conventional in a way that confines the claim to a particular useful application.
Viewing the claim limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at each of the claim limitations individually. Note that the combination of limitations and claim elements add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately, simply reciting implementation as performed by using generic computers / general computer components, see Alice (2014), and does not provide a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of various computer components to achieve a technical improvement, see BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC (2016).
Therefore claim 3, and all limitations taken both individually and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor do they include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 3 is ineligible.
Claims 4-5:
Step 1:
Claims 4-5 recite an app. The claim does not recite a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, and do not satisfy Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Framework in MPEP 2106 and the 2019 Patent Examination Guidelines (PEG). However, the claim can be amended to fall within a statutory category. See MPEP 2106.04(II). Analysis proceeds to Step 2A prong one. See MPEP 2106.03(II).
Step 2A – Prong One:
Claims 4-5 recite an abstract idea. Independent claim 4 recites: enables subscribing organizations to limit the users from its organization to communication… to only within their organization. Independent claim 5 recites: enables subscribing organizations to set their users up for communication… with the users from the other subscribing organizations, in addition to their subscribing organization. The claims as a whole recites certain methods of organizing human activities. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II).
First, the limitations of limiting, setting, and communication, (e.g. (claim 4) enables subscribing organizations to limit the users from its organization to communication… to only within their organization; (claim 5) enables subscribing organizations to set their users up for communication… with the users from the other subscribing organizations, in addition to their subscribing organization) are certain methods of organizing human activities. For instance, these limitations represent the sub-groupings of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, social activities). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C). For example, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people includes limiting / setting users up for communication, communication to only within their organization, communication with users from other subscribing organizations in addition to their subscribing organization; social activities includes limiting / setting users up for communication, communication to only within their organization, communication with users from other subscribing organizations in addition to their subscribing organization. The presence of generic computer components such as an app does not preclude the steps from reciting certain methods of organizing human activities, since the number of people involved in the activities is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping and instead it is based on whether an activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g. managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, social activities, following rules or instructions) regardless of the recitation of generic computer components or other machinery in its ordinary capacity, then it falls within the ‘Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity’ grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Analysis proceeds to Step 2A Prong Two.
Step 2A – Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). First, claim 1 as a whole merely describes how to generally ‘apply’ the concept of certain methods of organizing human activities in a computer environment. The claimed computer components (i.e. an app) are recited at a high-level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform an existing manual process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic / general purpose computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2016.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computers / general computer components (an app). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. Hence, the claims are directed to an abstract idea. Analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05. As discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using an app to perform limiting / setting, communicating amounts to no more than mere instructions to ‘apply’ the exception using generic computers. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e. mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(f). See the Applicant’s specification background ¶[0003] describing the additional element of mobile applications, and ¶[0014] describing the implementation of the invention as an app at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
The claims do not improve another technology or technical field. Instead the claims represent a generic implementation of organizing human activities ‘applied’ by generic / general purpose computers. The claims do not provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the user of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. At best, the claims are more directed towards solving a business / economic / entrepreneurial problem (i.e. how to introduce / limit user interaction), that is tangentially associated with a technology element (e.g. computers), rather than solving a technology based problem. See MPEP 2106.05(a). The claims do not improve the functioning of a computer itself. The claims are more directed towards improving a business / economic / entrepreneurial process rather than improving a computer outside of a business use, i.e. using computers a tool. The claims do not apply the judicial exception with or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction to a particular article to a different state or thing. The claims do not add a specific limitation other than what is well understood, routine, and conventional in a way that confines the claim to a particular useful application.
Viewing the claim limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at each of the claim limitations individually. Note that the combination of limitations and claim elements add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately, simply reciting implementation as performed by using generic computers / general computer components, see Alice (2014), and does not provide a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of various computer components to achieve a technical improvement, see BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC (2016).
Therefore independent claims 4 and 5, and all limitations taken both individually and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor do they include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claims 4 and 5 is ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US patent application publication 2016/0316503 A1 to Raphael.
Claim 1:
Raphael, as shown, details the following:
An app comprising of user profiles where each user has access to a muting capability in which a user can mute his profile and cancel mute at any time (Raphael ¶[0030], ¶[0148], ¶[0157] details a social media application in which users can manually control their privacy settings to choose whether to hide their profiles (i.e. muting a profile) or choose to reveal them to everyone (i.e. cancel mute), or only to friends or on an individual basis).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US patent application publication 2021/0217119 A1 to Youssef.
Claim 2:
Youssef, as shown, details the following:
An app that maintains data of its subscribing organizations and the users within each organization (Youssef Fig 2, ¶[0015], ¶[0038], ¶[0041-42] details a mobile / handheld device implemented invention, where a user (i.e. subscribing organization) specifies information regarding an individual or multiple contacts that the user wishes to monitor, the information is established in an account and stored on the data storage unit) in order to, upon receipt of an arrest alert of a user from that organization, inform the subscribing organization of the arrest (Youssef Fig 2, ¶[0021], ¶[0041], ¶[0059] details the incarceration alert system monitors the incarceration results and upon the arrest of a monitored individual specified in the account of the user, the user receives a notification alerting them of the incarceration of the monitored individual).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US patent application publication 2020/0090082 A1 to Singh.
Claim 3:
Singh, as shown, details the following:
An app comprising of a menu where walking companionship can be requested and accepted by entering in location and destination, and accepting responses, as with a ride share (Singh Fig 3-5, ¶[0010], ¶[0023], ¶[0030], ¶[0039] details a mobile app with menus where a user can request personalized security services for a bodyguard, the request specifies a pickup point and destination for the service and the order options may also include chauffeuring services with the bodyguard (i.e. ridesharing), the customer reviews and accepts a bodyguard / candidate from options, and the selected personal security candidate availability is confirmed).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US patent application publication 2015/0269702 A1 to Miasnik et al.
Claim 4:
Miasnik, as shown, details the following:
An app that enables subscribing organizations to limit the users from its organization to communication through the app to only within their organization (Miasnik ¶[0066], ¶[0078], ¶[0094] details a mobile end user application, and the app functionality permits subscribing organizations to manage communication and permission preferences, including the organization’s permissions to send/or receive information to users and other subscribed organizations).
EXAMINER’S NOTE: Note that enabling as recited in the claim limitations only allow the possibility of functions to occur and is not sufficient to convey the configured functionality of the described elements (e.g. subscribing organizations to limit the users from its organization to communication through the app to only within their organization ). Should the Applicant desire these features/functions to get patentable weight, the Office recommends amending the claim to represent this feature as a configured feature.
Claim 5:
Miasnik, as shown, details the following:
An app that enables subscribing organizations to set their users up for communication through the app with the users from the other subscribing organizations, in addition to their subscribing organization (Miasnik ¶[0066], ¶[0076], ¶[0078], ¶[0094] details a mobile end user application, and the app functionality permits subscribing organizations to manage communication and permission preferences, including the organization’s permissions to send/or receive information to users and other subscribed organizations).
EXAMINER’S NOTE: Note that enabling as recited in the claim limitations only allow the possibility of functions to occur and is not sufficient to convey the configured functionality of the described elements (e.g. subscribing organizations to set their users up for communication through the app with the users from the other subscribing organizations, in addition to their subscribing organization). Should the Applicant desire these features/functions to get patentable weight, the Office recommends amending the claim to represent this feature as a configured feature.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication US 2011/0301985 A1 to Camp et al. in view of “Walking Buddy option on Uber creates buzz on Twitter, company joins the fun” <https://www.timesnownews.com/the-buzz/article/walking-buddy-option-on-uber-creates-buzz-on-twitter-company-joins-the-fun/540985> (<https://web.archive.org/web/20200226030950/https://www.timesnownews.com/the-buzz/article/walking-buddy-option-on-uber-creates-buzz-on-twitter-company-joins-the-fun/540985> captured on 26 February 2020 using Wayback Machine) to TimesNowNews.Com (hereinafter TimesNowNews).
EXAMINER’S NOTE: Note that this alternate rejection is provided for claim 3 in further support of obviousness.
Claim 3:
With respect to the following:
An app comprising of a menu where walking companionship can be requested and accepted by entering in location and destination, and accepting responses, as with a ride share.
Camp, as shown in Fig 1, Fig 7A, ¶[0010], ¶[0047] details an app with a customer interface where a ride share / transportation service can be requested by a customer; Fig 8A-8B, ¶[0011], ¶[0014] details a transportation service provider can accept the request through the app, and Fig 7A-7F, ¶[0025], ¶[0108] details the request includes entering the customer location and destination, but does not explicitly state a menu and transportation service may include walking companionship. However, TimesNowNews teaches this remaining feature, with a ‘walking buddy’ transportation service in addition to ridesharing services, the menu options include ridesharing service through an UberX / Uber Pool or a Walking Buddy from the user’s current location to LaGuardia Airport (TimesNowNews pg. 2 Screenshot, pg. 2 ¶1-2 beginning “Would you want someone to accompany you when you decide to walk back home from work…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a menu where walking companionship can be requested and accepted as taught by TimesNowNews with the teachings of Camp, with the motivation that “That’s actually not a bad idea… its night and you don’t want to go alone. Get you [an] Uber-brand Walking Buddy and (potentially) decrease your chances of getting mugged and/or killed” (TimesNowNews pg. 3 quote by ‘GUN_Vanguard’). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a menu where walking companionship can be requested and accepted as taught by TimesNowNews in the system of Camp, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Additional Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
“Walk Buddy: The App for Walking Together” <https://www.walkbuddy.app/> (<https://web.archive.org/web/20220309074417/https://www.walkbuddy.app/> captured on 9 March 2022 using Wayback Machine) details a mobile app in which a user can find another user for a walk specifying a preferred location; members can send walk requests, decline walk requests, and block and report others.
“Walking Pal” <https://walkingpal.in/> (<https://web.archive.org/web/20230307115700/https://walkingpal.in/> captured on 7 March 2023 using Wayback Machine) details a mobile app in which a user can set a destination on a map, and send a request to another walker to join the walk.
US patent application publication 2022/0198913 A1 to Thompson et al. details security systems and methods of operation, in which a user may request an escort using a smart phone application (Thompson ¶[0094], ¶[0127]).
US patent application publication 2018/0018718 A1 to Childress et al. details an automated service request system, monitoring the location of the user device, which prompts a user for services in which the user may request escort service for assistance from a parking lot to the service provider facility entrance (Childress Fig 6, ¶[0081-82]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN TALLMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3198. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5.
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, Jeff Zimmerman can be reached at (571) 272-4602. 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