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 .
This communication is in response to application 18/485,276 filed on 10/11/2023. Claims 1 and 12 are amended and hereby entered. Claims 7-8 and 16-17 are canceled. New claims 21-24 are added. Claims 1-24 are pending and are examined. No claims are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/11/2023 are fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding 35 USC 101:
The applicant submits that the independent claims have removed the verbiage defining the present invention as being a system and method for organizing human activity, asserting the purpose of the invention is to link user profiles and not monopolize a means of generally forming relationships. However, the applicant removes verbiage from the preamble stating “A system
Further, the applicant asserts that the profiles are specific to the system application not the abstract idea. However, the abstract idea being performed via system application as “a collection of human-readable text/graphics” on a computing device does not disqualify it as an abstract idea. As discussed in the 35 USC 101 rejection the computing device is simply used as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). The abstract idea is still present regardless if it is performed on a system application on a computing device.
Further, the applicant submits the user profiles are accessible through use of “physical” user cards. However, the claims simply recite cards not physical cards. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims would include virtual cards with a QR code on a computing device. The additional element of a computing device has been previously discussed as a tool to implement the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106(II). Even if the claims are amended to specify a physical card separate from the computing device, it still falls under the same “apply it” analysis, as the computing device and the physical card would simply be used as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Further, the applicant asserts the invention amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea because both the specific order of scanning and the application used for scanning, determines access to user profiles. However, these are not additional elements that can amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. They are part of the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity, not additional elements that amount to significantly more. Therefore, the examiner respectfully disagrees and the rejection is maintained.
Regarding 35 USC 102 and 103:
The applicant submits that the amendments clarify how the deactivation occurs. However, the amended features of the independent claim (and newly added claim 22) simply recite intended use or result, see MPEP 2111.04. Further, the prior art previously provided still teaches the amendments. The deactivation of the card is anticipated by Harris’ “use-once card” that indicates a card can no longer be used after one scan. In regards to newly added claim 24, the “use-once card” also anticipates preventing the QR code from being “re-linked” because the card can only be used once. Even further, art that is pertinent but not relied upon is included as a courtesy to the applicant to further show deactivation preventing further use, see Wegner (US 20220351181 A1): [(Abstract) “the obtained data is analysed in order to check whether the data saved in the QR code have not been used already, and if it have not, the data is used in the IT system (for example mobile application, web application), and after that the data is deactivated, which prevent it from further usage”, (Para 0001) “The subject of this invention is a method of single-use processing of data saved in a Quick Response (QR) code”, (Para 0019) “Next—after using the data saved in the QR code—such data will be deactivated in the deactivation module”]
Further, the applicant submits that the examiner references paragraphs 0036-0052 of Harris as anticipating the system application and auxiliary application. However, this citation was drawn towards anticipating the “system application” limitation in numbered paragraph 18 of the nonfinal rejection dated 05/09/2025. The same office action later cites paragraph 0018 of Harris as anticipating the “auxiliary application”. Harris shows the card may be scanned using a camera in the phone. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the auxiliary application includes a camera on a phone, which is consistent with support from the applicant specification stating, “An example of an auxiliary application may be a camera application of a smartphone”, (Specification, Page 7, Lines 2-3). Therefore, the examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant arguments, and the rejection is maintained.
Further, in regards to new claims 21 and 23, the applicant submits that Harris in view of Brown teaches a one-way message rather than a two-way message functionality of the present invention. The new claims necessitate new prior art rendering the applicant arguments moot. Therefore, the examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant arguments, and the rejection is maintained.
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 21 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 claim limitation “initiates a chat session” is not present in the specification. The specification only describes prompting messaging, (see page 7 and 10 of applicant specification). For the purpose of compact prosecution, the limitation is interpreted as any messaging between users prompted after scanning a QR code.
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 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) with no practical application and without significantly more.
Claims 1-11 and 21-22 are systems, and Claims 12-20 and 23-24 are methods. Thus, each claim on its face is directed to one of the statutory categories of 35 USC 101. However, claims 1-24 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea in that the instant application is directed to a certain methods of organizing human activity (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). The independent claims (1 and 12) recite a systems and methods to connect people in a social network. These claim elements are being interpreted as Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions between people. Forming connections between individuals via QR code and social network application falls under managing relationships and interactions. The claims recite an abstract idea consistent with the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping set forth in the MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II).
The instant application fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the instant application merely recites an “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea. The instant application is directed towards a method and systems to implement the identified abstract idea of “managing personal behavior, relationships or interactions between people” (i.e. connecting people via barcode and social network application) on a generically claimed computer structure. The claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The independent claims recite the additional element “computing device”. This claim element is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a general-purpose computer environment. The machines merely act as a modality to implement the abstract idea and are not indicative of integration into a practical application (i.e., the additional elements are simply used as a tool to perform the abstract idea), see MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed in Step 2A Prong Two analysis, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The same analysis applies here in 2B and does not provide an inventive concept.
In regards to the dependent claims
Claims 2-11 and 13-24 do not introduce any new additional abstract ideas or new additional elements and do not impact analysis under 35 USC 101.
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.
Claims 1-4, 9, 11, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Harris (US 20120211557 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Harris teaches:
A system for connecting people comprising: a central database; a system application implemented on a computing device of each user of the system, [(Figure 1), (Para 0036-0052)]
the system application comprising a user profile for each user; [(Figure 1), (Para 0029) “When the code is read, the social network site can automatically determine profile information about the reader from information in the portable communicator.”
and a plurality of user cards, each comprising a machine-readable medium, wherein the machine-readable medium on each of the plurality of cards is unique, wherein the user profile of each user is unique, wherein each machine-readable medium is linked to a user profile, [(Figure 1), (Para 0014) “For example, when the use once box is checked, each of the cards 115 will be unique and can be used only once”, (Para 0019) “For example, 140 is shown displaying the barcode 145 on the screen, where the barcode is a use-once barcode and represents a preapproved invite to be a friend on a social network”]
wherein one or more of the plurality of user cards are first user cards belonging to a first user, wherein the first user gives a first user card to a second user, [(Para 0009) “For example, a user may print a number of cards, which preapprove anyone who has these unique codes on the cards, to be their friend. A user can give these cards out to people.”]
wherein the second user scans the machine-readable medium of the first user card using an auxiliary application implemented on a second user computing device, the auxiliary application being a different application than the system application, [(Para 0018) “The card 115 may be given out to people, and any user may then or later scan that card with their phones 130 using the camera in the phone”]
whereby the user profile of the first user is displayed on the second user computing device, [(Para 0028) “160 shows how this code is key to an event, so that a user get a friend request that says "this (person's profile here e.g. name etc.) person has asked a friend a user based on (the event that occurred at condition, time, date, place ( ). Do a user want to accept?”]
wherein the machine-readable medium of the first user card is scanned by a third user, wherein the second user scans the machine-readable medium of the first user card using the system application implemented on the second user computing device, [(Para 0018) “The card 115 may be given out to people, and any user may then or later scan that card with their phones 130 using the camera in the phone”]
whereby a connection is formed between the user profile of the first user and the user profile of the second user, [(Para 0021) “A user can scan the code in the email to become a Facebook friend or to be connected on some other site”]
whereby the machine-readable medium of the first user card is deactivated automatically upon scanning the machine-readable medium of the first user card using the system application implemented on the second user computing device, [(Para 0014) “For example, when the use once box is checked, each of the cards 115 will be unique and can be used only once”, (Para 0019) “For example, 140 is shown displaying the barcode 145 on the screen, where the barcode is a use-once barcode and represents a preapproved invite to be a friend on a social network.”]
whereby the machine-readable medium of the first user card is no longer able to be scanned, by any device or any application regardless of any parameters used to link the first user profile to the machine readable medium of the first user card. [The limitations describe intended result, but art is still provided; (Para 0014) “For example, when the use once box is checked, each of the cards 115 will be unique and can be used only once”, (Para 0019) “For example, 140 is shown displaying the barcode 145 on the screen, where the barcode is a use-once barcode and represents a preapproved invite to be a friend on a social network.”]
wherein the links between machine-readable media and user profiles are recorded in the central database, [(Para 0009) “For example, a user may print a number of cards, which preapprove anyone who has these unique codes on the cards, to be their friend. A user can give these cards out to people. The code is for a preapproved friend connection” (Para 0033) “For example other information can be displayed on these screens, including alphanumeric information. Other kinds of networks that allow user connections can be accessed in this way”, (Para 0036-0048)]
wherein connections between user profiles are recorded in the central database, wherein attempts to scan the machine-readable media of each of the plurality of user cards using the system application are recorded in the central database, [(Para 0014) “For example, when the use once box is checked, each of the cards 115 will be unique and can be used only once, and when used, create an automatic friend relationship”, (Para 0036-0048)]
whereby a machine-readable medium is deactivated if an attempt to scan said machine-readable medium is made using the system application [(Para 0017) “Another option shown as 114 may be the option to cancel a previously given card. For example, if the user gives a card to someone and later changes their mind, the user may be able to cancel any preapproval that has been associated with that card”, (Para 0036-0048)]
Regarding Claim 2, Harris teaches the limitations set forth above, Harris further teaches:
wherein multiple machine-readable media are linked to a single user profile. [(Para 0009) “For example, a user may print a number of cards, which preapprove anyone who has these unique codes on the cards, to be their friend”]
Regarding Claim 3, Haris teaches the limitations set forth above, Harris further teaches:
wherein each machine-readable medium is linked to only a single user profile. [(Para 0009) “For example, a user may print a number of cards, which preapprove anyone who has these unique codes on the cards, to be their friend”, (Para 0012) “In one embodiment, the code 120 in this embodiment may be usable only once if the use once option 111 is checked.”]
Regarding Claim 4, Haris teaches the limitations set forth above, Harris further teaches:
wherein the machine-readable media are linked to user profiles using a Link Card function of the system application. [(Figure 1), (Para 0008) “The first option shown is the ability to print "cards" 115. For example, these could be a virtual business card, of a conventional type that lists your name 116, other personal information 118 and also has a special code 120. In the embodiment, the code is shown as a barcode of a type that can be imaged by a camera on a phone. For example, the barcode can be a "Semacode" or "QR" type code, optimized for imaging using a cell phone camera”, (Para 0029) “When the code is read, the social network site can automatically determine profile information about the reader from information in the portable communicator”]
Regarding Claim 9, Haris teaches the limitations set forth above, Harris further teaches:
wherein the machine-readable media are QR codes. [(Para 0008) “In the embodiment, the code is shown as a barcode of a type that can be imaged by a camera on a phone. For example, the barcode can be a "Semacode" or "QR" type code, optimized for imaging using a cell phone camera.”]
Regarding Claim 11, Haris teaches the limitations set forth above, Harris further teaches:
wherein the user profile of a user is recorded in the central database prior to the machine-readable medium being linked to said user profile. [(Figure 1), (Para 0007) “For example, in the Facebook mobile application shown as 100, there may be a box 105 that is checked to indicate that you (the user) want to invite one or more real world friends”, (Para 0009) “For example, a user may print a number of cards, which preapprove anyone who has these unique codes on the cards, to be their friend. A user can give these cards out to people. The code is for a preapproved friend connection”]
Regarding Claim 22, Harris teaches the limitations set forth above, Harris further teaches:
wherein once a machine-readable medium is deactivated, it cannot be re-linked to any user profile. [The limitations describe intended result, but art is still provided; (Para 0014) “For example, when the use once box is checked, each of the cards 115 will be unique and can be used only once”, (Para 0019) “For example, 140 is shown displaying the barcode 145 on the screen, where the barcode is a use-once barcode and represents a preapproved invite to be a friend on a social network.”]
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.
Claims 5-6, 10, 12-15, 18-20, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris (US 20120211557 A1) in view of Brown (US 20230185957 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Harris teaches the limitations of Claim 1, Harris further teaches:
wherein when the second user scans the machine-readable medium of the first user card using the auxiliary application, [(Para 0018) “The card 115 may be given out to people, and any user may then or later scan that card with their phones 130 using the camera in the phone”]
whereby the machine-readable medium of the first user card is scanned by the third user. [(Para 0018) “The card 115 may be given out to people, and any user may then or later scan that card with their phones 130 using the camera in the phone”]
However, Harris does not teach but Brown does teach:
the system application prompts the second user to connect to the user profile of the first user, [(Para 0184) “Another user may scan the single-use QR code to receive an invitation to connect to the one or more user profiles selected by the user”]
wherein the second user chooses not to connect to the user profile of the first user, [(Para 0187) “The user may elect to rescind one or more invitations to connect that have not yet been accepted, may decline in invitations to connect received from other users”]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the barcode system of connecting users taught by Harris, with the ability to give prompts for the second user to choice whether or not to connect after scanning taught by Brown. The claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately. One of ordinary skill would have recognized adding prompts for the second user when scanning QR codes to make connections would have yielded predictable results.
Regarding Claim 6, Harris teaches the limitations of Claim 1, Harris further teaches:
wherein when the second user scans the machine-readable medium of the first user card using the auxiliary application, [(Para 0008) “In the embodiment, the code is shown as a barcode of a type that can be imaged by a camera on a phone. For example, the barcode can be a "Semacode" or "QR" type code, optimized for imaging using a cell phone camera”, (Para 0018) “The card 115 may be given out to people, and any user may then or later scan that card with their phones 130 using the camera in the phone”]
whereby the attempt to connect to the user profile of the first user is recorded in the central database, [(Para 0018) “The card 115 may be given out to people, and any user may then or later scan that card with their phones 130 using the camera in the phone” (Para 0019) “For example, the location of the phone and date and time may be either displayed or maintained so that the social network receives the information that you friended this person at a specific event that occurred at the location, date and time where the friending occurs”, (Para 0036-0052)]
whereby a connection is formed between the user profile of the first user and the user profile of the second user, [(Para 0021) “A user can scan the code in the email to become a Facebook friend or to be connected on some other site”]
whereby the machine-readable medium of the first user card is deactivated, whereby the machine-readable medium of the first user card is no longer able to be scanned. (Para 0014) “For example, when the use once box is checked, each of the cards 115 will be unique and can be used only once”]
However, Harris does not teach but Brown does teach:
the system application prompts the second user to connect to the user profile of the first user, wherein the second user chooses to connect to the user profile of the first user, [(Para 0184) “Another user may scan the single-use QR code to receive an invitation to connect to the one or more user profiles selected by the user. Upon accepting an invitation to connect”]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the barcode system of connecting users taught by Harris, with the ability to give prompts for the second user to choose whether or not to connect after scanning taught by Brown. The claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately. One of ordinary skill would have recognized adding prompts for the second user when scanning QR codes to make connections would have yielded predictable results.
Regarding Claim 10, Harris teaches the limitations of Claim 1, Harris further teaches:
wherein when the connection is formed between the user profile of the first user and the user profile of the second user, [(Para 0021) “A user can scan the code in the email to become a Facebook friend or to be connected on some other site”]
However, Harris does not teach but Brown does teach:
the first user and second user are prompted by the system application to message one another within the system application. [(Para 0153) “The user may also be prompted to enter a custom or personal message to the recipient”]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the barcode system of connecting users taught by Harris, with the ability to give prompts for the second user to message taught by Brown. The claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately. One of ordinary skill would have recognized adding prompts for the second user when scanning QR codes to message and make connections would have yielded predictable results.
Regarding Claim 12, Harris teaches:
A method comprising: providing a central database; providing a system application implemented on a first user computing device and a second user computing device; [(Figure 1), (Para 0036-0052)]
providing a first user card to the first user, the first user card comprising a machine-readable medium; [(Para 0009) “This code 120 may represent a preapproved friend request according to one embodiment. For example, a user may print a number of cards, which preapprove anyone who has these unique codes on the cards, to be their friend.”]
the first user using a Link Card function of the system application to link the first user card to the user profile of the first user; recording the link between the first user card and the user profile of the first user in the central database; [(Figure 1), (Para 0008) “The first option shown is the ability to print "cards" 115. For example, these could be a virtual business card, of a conventional type that lists your name 116, other personal information 118 and also has a special code 120. In the embodiment, the code is shown as a barcode of a type that can be imaged by a camera on a phone. For example, the barcode can be a "Semacode" or "QR" type code, optimized for imaging using a cell phone camera”, (Para 0029) “When the code is read, the social network site can automatically determine profile information about the reader from information in the portable communicator”]
the first user providing the first user card to the second user; the second user scanning the machine-readable medium of the first user card using an auxiliary application implemented on the second user computing device, the auxiliary application being a different application than the system application, [(Para 0008) “In the embodiment, the code is shown as a barcode of a type that can be imaged by a camera on a phone. For example, the barcode can be a "Semacode" or "QR" type code, optimized for imaging using a cell phone camera”, (Para 0018) “The card 115 may be given out to people, and any user may then or later scan that card with their phones 130 using the camera in the phone”]
whereby the user profile of the first user is displayed on the second user computing device, [(Para 0019) “Another option from the mobile application is to display the invite on the screen of the user's mobile device, shown as 140… On the screen may also be displayed information about the person and the friending circumstance”]
wherein the machine-readable medium of the first user card is scanned by a third user; [(Para 0018) “The card 115 may be given out to people, and any user may then or later scan that card with their phones 130 using the camera in the phone”]
the second user scanning the machine-readable medium of the first user card using the system application implemented on the second user computing device; forming a connection between the user profile of the first user and the user profile of the second user; recording the connection between the user profile of the first user and the user profile of the second user in the central database; [(Figure 1), (Para 0021) “A user can scan the code in the email to become a Facebook friend or to be connected on some other site”]
recording the attempt by the second user to scan the machine-readable medium of the first user card using the system application in the central database; [(Para 0018) “The card 115 may be given out to people, and any user may then or later scan that card with their phones 130 using the camera in the phone” (Para 0019) “For example, the location of the phone and date and time may be either displayed or maintained so that the social network receives the information that you friended this person at a specific event that occurred at the location, date and time where the friending occurs”]
and deactivating the machine-readable medium of the first user card, automatically upon scanning the machine-readable medium of the first user card using the system application implemented on the second using computing device, [(Para 0014) “For example, when the use once box is checked, each of the cards 115 will be unique and can be used only once”, (Para 0019) “For example, 140 is shown displaying the barcode 145 on the screen, where the barcode is a use-once barcode and represents a preapproved invite to be a friend on a social network.”
whereby the machine- readable medium of the first user card is no longer able to be scanned by any device or any application regardless of any parameters used to link the first user profile to the machine-readable medium of the first user card. [The limitation recites intended result, but art is still provided; (Para 0012) “In one embodiment, the code 120 in this embodiment may be usable only once if the use once option 111 is checked”, (Para 0014) “For example, when the use once box is checked, each of the cards 115 will be unique and can be used only once”, (Para 0019) “For example, 140 is shown displaying the barcode 145 on the screen, where the barcode is a use-once barcode and represents a preapproved invite to be a friend on a social network.”]
However, Harris does not teach but Brown does teach:
a first user creating a user profile within the system application; a second user creating a user profile within the system application, wherein the user profile of the second user is different than the user profile of the first user; [(Para 0098) “Each individual may create one or more customized profiles containing his or her personal and/or professional contact information”]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the barcode system of connecting users taught by Harris, with creation of the accounts being connected taught by Brown. The claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately. One of ordinary skill would have recognized the creation of accounts would be obvious before connecting accounts of users, yielding predictable results.
Regarding Claim 13, The combination of Harris and Brown teach the limitations of claim 12, Harris further teaches:
wherein a plurality of first user cards are provided to the first user, wherein each of the plurality of first user cards comprise a unique machine-readable medium, wherein the first user links at least one of the plurality of first user cards to the user profile of the first user using the Link Card function of the system application. [(Figure 1), (Para 0008) “The first option shown is the ability to print "cards" 115. For example, these could be a virtual business card, of a conventional type that lists your name 116, other personal information 118 and also has a special code 120. In the embodiment, the code is shown as a barcode of a type that can be imaged by a camera on a phone. For example, the barcode can be a "Semacode" or "QR" type code, optimized for imaging using a cell phone camera”, (Para 0014) “For example, when the use once box is checked, each of the cards 115 will be unique and can be used only once”]
Regarding Claim 14, The combination of Harris and Brown teach the limitations of claim 12, Harris further teaches:
when the second user scans the machine-readable medium of the first user card using the auxiliary application [(Para 0008) “In the embodiment, the code is shown as a barcode of a type that can be imaged by a camera on a phone. For example, the barcode can be a "Semacode" or "QR" type code, optimized for imaging using a cell phone camera”, (Para 0018) “The card 115 may be given out to people, and any user may then or later scan that card with their phones 130 using the camera in the phone”]
whereby the machine-readable medium of the first user card is scanned by the third user. [(Para 0018) “The card 115 may be given out to people, and any user may then or later scan that card with their phones 130 using the camera in the phone”]
However, Harris does not teach but Brown does teach:
further comprising: prompting the second user to connect to the user profile of the first user, [(Para 0184) “Another user may scan the single-use QR code to receive an invitation to connect to the one or more user profiles selected by the user”]
wherein the second user chooses not to connect to the user profile of the first user, [(Para 0187) “The user may elect to rescind one or more invitations to connect that have not yet been accepted, may decline in invitations to connect received from other users”]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the barcode system of connecting users taught by Harris, with the ability to give prompts for the second user to choose whether or not to connect after scanning taught by Brown. The claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately. One of ordinary skill would have recognized adding prompts for the second user when scanning QR codes to make connections would have yielded predictable results.
Regarding Claim 15, The combination of Harris and Brown teach the limitations of claim 12, Harris further teaches:
when the second user scans the machine-readable medium of the first user card using the auxiliary application; [(Para 0008) “In the embodiment, the code is shown as a barcode of a type that can be imaged by a camera on a phone. For example, the barcode can be a "Semacode" or "QR" type code, optimized for imaging using a cell phone camera”, (Para 0018) “The card 115 may be given out to people, and any user may then or later scan that card with their phones 130 using the camera in the phone”]
forming a connection between the user profile of the first user and the user profile of the second user; recording the connection between the user profile of the first user and the user profile of the second user in the central database; [(Figure 1), (Para 0021) “A user can scan the code in the email to become a Facebook friend or to be connected on some other site”]
recording the attempt by the second user to scan the machine-readable medium of the first user card using the system application in the central database; [(Para 0018) “The card 115 may be given out to people, and any user may then or later scan that card with their phones 130 using the camera in the phone” (Para 0019) “For example, the location of the phone and date and time may be either displayed or maintained so that the social network receives the information that you friended this person at a specific event that occurred at the location, date and time where the friending occurs”]
and deactivating the machine-readable medium of the first user card. [(Para 0012) “In one embodiment, the code 120 in this embodiment may be usable only once if the use once option 111 is checked.”]
However, Harris does not teach but Brown does teach:
further comprising: prompting the second user to connect to the user profile of the first user [(Para 0184) “Another user may scan the single-use QR code to receive an invitation to connect to the one or more user profiles selected by the user”]
the second user choosing to connect to the user profile of the first user; [(Para 0184) “Upon accepting an invitation to connect”]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the barcode system of connecting users taught by Harris, with the ability to give prompts for the second user to choose whether or not to connect after scanning taught by Brown. The claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately. One of ordinary skill would have recognized adding prompts for the second user when scanning QR codes to make connections would have yielded predictable results.
Regarding Claim 18, The combination of Harris and Brown teach the limitations of Claim 12, Harris further teaches:
wherein the machine-readable medium is a QR code. [(Para 0008) “In the embodiment, the code is shown as a barcode of a type that can be imaged by a camera on a phone. For example, the barcode can be a "Semacode" or "QR" type code, optimized for imaging using a cell phone camera.”]
Regarding Claim 19, The combination of Harris and Brown teach limitations of Claim 12, Harris further teaches:
when the connection is formed between the user profile of the first user and the user profile of the second user, [(Para 0021) “A user can scan the code in the email to become a Facebook friend or to be connected on some other site”]
However, Harris does not teach but Brown does teach:
prompting the first user and second user to message one another within the system application [(Para 0153) “The user may also be prompted to enter a custom or personal message to the recipient”]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the barcode system of connecting users taught by Harris, with the ability to give prompts for the second user to message taught by Brown. The claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately. One of ordinary skill would have recognized adding prompts for the second user when scanning QR codes to message and make connections would have yielded predictable results.
Regarding Claim 20, The combination of Harris and Brown teach the limitations of Claim 12, Harris further teaches:
further comprising: recording the user profile of the first user in the central database before the first user links the user profile of the first user to the first user card. [(Figure 1), (Para 0007) “For example, in the Facebook mobile application shown as 100, there may be a box 105 that is checked to indicate that you (the user) want to invite one or more real world friends”, (Para 0009) “For example, a user may print a number of cards, which preapprove anyone who has these unique codes on the cards, to be their friend. A user can give these cards out to people. The code is for a preapproved friend connection”]
Regarding Claim 24, The combination of Harris and Brown teaches all the limitations of claim 12, Harris further teaches:
further comprising preventing any deactivated machine- readable medium from being re-linked to a user profile. [(Para 0014) “For example, when the use once box is checked, each of the cards 115 will be unique and can be used only once”, (Para 0019) “For example, 140 is shown displaying the barcode 145 on the screen, where the barcode is a use-once barcode and represents a preapproved invite to be a friend on a social network.”]
Claims 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris (US 20120211557 A1) in view of Ciavatta (US 20170026321 A1).
Regarding Claim 21, Harris teaches all the limitations of claim 1,
However, Harris does not teach but Ciavatta does teach:
wherein upon forming of a connection between the user profile of the first user and the user profile of the second user, the system application automatically initiates a chat session between the first user and the second user. [(Para 0247) “In particular, upon confirmation that the graphic code is verified (step 1307), the mobile computing device 1104-2 is enabled to initiate and establish an online exchange of messages in real time, e.g. a so-called chat or electronic chat, with the other mobile computing device”]
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of forming connections with QR codes (Harris) with initiating messaging/chat (Ciavatta), because one of ordinary skill would recognize that messaging would be beneficial in a system connecting people.
Claims 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris (US 20120211557 A1) in view of Brown (US 20230185957 A1) in further view of Ciavatta (US 20170026321 A1).
Regarding Claim 23, Harris in view of Brown teach the limitations of claim 12
However, the combination of Harris and Brown do not teach but Ciavatta does teach:
further comprising automatically initiating a messaging session within the system application between the first user and the second user upon formation of a connection [(Para 0247) “In particular, upon confirmation that the graphic code is verified (step 1307), the mobile computing device 1104-2 is enabled to initiate and establish an online exchange of messages in real time, e.g. a so-called chat or electronic chat, with the other mobile computing device”]
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of forming connections with QR codes (Harris) with initiating messaging/chat (Ciavatta), because one of ordinary skill would recognize that messaging would be beneficial in a system connecting people.
Conclusion
Pertinent art not relied upon:
Wegner (US 20220351181 A1) The method of Single-Use Processing of Data Saved in a Quick Response (QR) Code. Wegner discusses preventing further usage of already used QR codes.
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 Examiner Benjamin Truong, whose telephone number is 703-756-5883. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 9 am to 5 pm (EST).
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, Nathan Uber SPE can be reached on 571-270-3923. 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.
/B.L.T. /Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/NATHAN C UBER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626