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 Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed 07/06/2026 regarding application 18/555,390 filed 10/13/2026. Claims 1 and 4 are amended and hereby entered. Claims 2-3, 5-7, 10-20, and 23-25 are canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding 35 USC 101:
The applicant submits the claims are not directed to mental processes or certain methods of organizing human activity, (see pages 8-11 of applicant’s arguments filed 07/06/2026). Specifically, the applicant submits the amendments regarding extracting proximity, affinity, or authenticity data, from an NFT associated with a user is not directed to an abstract idea. However, the step of extracting data falls under the receiving of information that is performed in a mental process. The claims simply use the computer as tool to perform extraction of data, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and MPEP 2106.05(f). Similarly, the applicant submits proximity filtering involving the use of user devices within a defined radius is not directed to certain methods of organizing human activity. However, filtering not only describes analyzing information falling under a mental process, but filtering users further describes managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C). Again, the devices are simply used as tools to perform the management of interactions between people, (i.e. analysis and management of interactions are performed with general purpose computing components).
Further, the applicant submits that examiner’s distinction between the claimed “space factor” being unrelated to a “calculation”, has no bearing on eligibility under 101 prong one and prong two, (reference nonfinal office action dated 03/06/2026). However, this distinction was made to highlight that the filtering being performed via a “space factor” is being interpreted broadly as a setting and not a calculation. The limitation recites, “space factor, wherein the space factor comprises a distance vector setting in three dimensions to determine whether user devices associated with one or more user profiles are within a defined radius of a user device”. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim is a setting not a vector calculation. The lack of claimed calculation was highlighted to address the applicant’s previous arguments stating that a “three dimensional distance vector calculation” cannot be practically performed in the human mind and is a specific technical implementation, (see applicant’s arguments dated 1/23/2026). There was no “three dimensional distance vector calculation” recited in the claims and consequently no technical implementation. The discussion of a calculation was not made to defeat inventive concept; rather, it was presented as an explanation and argument against features that were not claimed (i.e. there is no vector calculation claimed).
Further the applicant submits the claim recites specific technological implementation for how the profile data is authenticated, filtered, presented, and reciprocally notified, (see pages 12-14 of applicant’s arguments filed 07/06/2026). However, the processing steps described by the claims fall under the abstract ideas of mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity. The claim limitations recite an abstract idea of managed behaviors, relationships and interactions between people via rules and instructions for interactions. Again, the additional elements such as the general purpose computing components are used as tools to perform the abstract idea, 2106.05(f).
Further, the applicant submits the alleged abstract ideas are integrated into practical application, and the examiner analysis does not account for additional elements such as NFT assets in the claims. Although the claim limitations recite nonfungible tokens, they are not considered additional elements because the claims explicitly recite, “wherein the proximity data, affinity data, or authenticity data is extracted from one or more digital non-fungible token (NFT) assets”, and “presentation presents a digital NFT asset as a profile picture for a profile”. The claims are interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation which describes the positively recited step of extracting data and presenting profile data. The NFT itself is simply a tokenized representation of data. Therefore, the NFT itself is not considered to be an additional element because it can be interpreted as a form of data. Further, the applicant argues that the NFT validates information, validates affinity, and validates authenticity. However, none of these “validation” steps are recited in the claims and cannot be technical improvements to the underlying technology.
Further the applicant recites the user interface provides practical application. However, there is no improvement to user interface technology itself; rather, the UI is simply used as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Additionally, the applicant recites the heat meter provides practical application. However, this is a software element that comprises the abstract idea of managing interactions which is performed by general purpose computing components.
Further, the applicant submits the claimed combination is directed to a technological improvement (see pages 14-15 of applicant’s arguments filed 07/06/2026). However, examiner respectfully disagrees as the improvements lie in the abstract ideas itself, not the additional elements. While arguably there are improvements to the commonplace business method of managing interactions (improvements to the abstract idea), there is no improvement to the underlying computing technology performing the commonplace business method.
Additionally, the applicant repeatedly submits similar arguments regarding data processing, calculations, and NFTs, against the examiners assertion that the claims recite mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity, (see pages 15-17 of applicant’s arguments filed 07/06/2026). However, for the same reasons the examiner has discussed above, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Further, the applicant submits the claims recite significantly more than the abstract idea (see pages 17-19 of applicant’s arguments filed 07/06/2026). Specifically, the applicant argues the office has not shown the combination was well understood, routine, or conventional. However, Berkheimer analysis is required in the presence of extra solution activity. The rejection does not rely on extra solution activity; rather it relies on 2106.05(f) “apply it” recitation. The additional elements comprise general purpose computing components used as tools to perform the identified abstract ideas and cannot amount to significantly more.
Therefore, the examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s arguments, and the rejection under 35 USC 101 is maintained.
Regarding 35 USC 102/103:
The applicant submits prior art Khan fails to disclose the newly amended claim 1 limitations incorporated from the now canceled dependent claims. The examiner agrees Khan does not teach all the amended limitations. The amended limitations have necessitated new grounds of rejection for claim 1, relying on both Khan and other prior art. Therefore, the applicant’s arguments regarding Khan are moot.
Regarding the Applicant’s comments addressing prior rebuttals to prior arguments, (see page 24-25 of Applicant’s arguments dated 07/06/2026), the examiner emphasizes the claims are interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, without reading limitations of the specification into the claims.
For example, the applicant discusses how Khan does not teach the specificity of a determination and a distance vector setting tied to a defined radius. However, the prior art teaches a specific version of the claimed limitation with its polygonal geographic construct region which is used for determinations of distance. Additionally, the limitations broadly describe the determination of users within the claimed radius which is also taught by the various “embodiments of the PSN” shown in Khan. Additionally, see other portions of Khan already cited to regarding the alleged space factor, (Para 0025) “The PSN 100 can filter information based on user proximity”, (Para 0026) “By filtering information based on user proximity and other factors, the PSN 100 can provide users with information that is relevant to them at their current location and at a current point in time”, (Para 0018) “For example, the proximity determiner 112 may determine that two users are in proximity to one another if they are within a reasonable walking distance”.
Similarly, the distance vector setting is taught by Khan’s straight-line distance to represent geographic proximity which occurs in three dimensions, (see previous 102 rejection of claim 1 in the nonfinal office action dated 03/06/2026).
Similarly, the applicant’s “filtering” step is already taught by Khan in a prior cited limitation. The limitation regarding “confluence of time and space” further describes the filtering step by incorporating a determination. The filtering step itself was already taught earlier in the rejection by a direct citation to Khan. Further, the examiner still re-emphasizes the filtering step with the same citation to paragraph 26 of Khan explicitly stating “filtering”. (see previous 102 rejection of claim 1 in the nonfinal office action dated 03/06/2026)
Therefore, the claim limitations are interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation., and the breadth of the claim limitations are larger than the cited prior art. The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s arguments, and the rejection is maintained.
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, 4, 8-9, 21-22, and 26-31 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.
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea in that the instant application is directed to a mental process (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). The independent claim 1 recites a method and systems to evaluate user information to present connections based on the analysis of the processed data. These claim elements are being interpreted as concepts performed in the human mind (including observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion). Using user information and presenting connections based on the analyzed information can equivalently be achieved by human observation and evaluation. The claims recite an abstract idea consistent with the “mental process” grouping set forth in the MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Further, claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea in that the instant application is directed to certain methods of organizing human activities, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). The independent claim 1, recites a method and systems to manage relationships and interactions between people by following proximity rules. These claim elements are being interpreted as managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities and following rules or instructions. 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 the abstract ideas. The instant application is directed towards a method and systems to implement the identified abstract idea of receiving information, processing information, and displaying the result of the analysis (i.e. processing user information to present connections and the like) and managing relationships or interactions with people (i.e. using proximity rules to filter interactions and the like) on a generically claimed computer structure. The claims do not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into practical application or that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The independent claims recite the additional elements “one or more processors”, “interface and “user interface”. These claim elements are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a general 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.
Regarding the dependent claims
Claims 4, 8-9, 21-22, and 26-31 introduce no new additional abstract ideas or new additional elements and do not impact analysis under 35 USC 101
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 1, 4, 8-9, 21-22, and 26-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khan (US 20110238755 A1) in view of Prajapati (US 20210311931 A1) in view of Sunday (US 20070220444 A1) in further view of Shah (US 20200273124 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Khan teaches:
A method comprising: analyzing, by a software platform and interface executed by one or more processors, psychological and experienced based user information comprising proximity data, affinity data, and authenticity data, of one or more user profiles and a current user profile; [see at least Khan: (Para 0136) “By aggregating social networking information, the PSN can also provide various social analytics functions to help users better understand and maintain their social connections”, (Para 0014) “Embodiments described herein provide enhanced computer- and network-based methods, systems, and techniques for providing users with relevant information and facilitating interactions based on proximity and social affinity”, (Para 0176) “the PSN 100 has the ability to generate specific, time, location, or activity based questions that can only be answered correctly by an authentic user”]
determining, by the software platform and interface, one or more profile connections between the one or more user profiles and the current user profile based on the analysis of the psychological and experienced based user information; [see at least Khan: (Para 0136) “In addition, the PSN may suggest or recommend that a user take particular actions to maintain and/or develop friendships or other types of relationships”]
filtering, by the software platform and interface, the one or more profile connections based on a proximity setting of the current user profile, wherein the proximity setting comprises an immediacy factor and a space factor; [see at least Khan: (Para 0025) “The PSN 100 can filter information based on user proximity”, (Para 0026) “By filtering information based on user proximity and other factors, the PSN 100 can provide users with information that is relevant to them at their current location and at a current point in time”, (Para 0018) “For example, the proximity determiner 112 may determine that two users are in proximity to one another if they are within a reasonable walking distance”]
wherein the space factor comprises a distance vector setting in three dimensions to determine whether user devices associated with the one or more user profiles are within a defined radius of a user device associated with the current user profile, [see at least Khan: (Para 0104) “Embodiments of the PSN go beyond straight-line distance to represent geographic proximity, such as by representing geographic proximity by using a hierarchically composed structure of spaces. Each space represents a region in two or three dimensional space, such as may be bounded by a polygon, circle, sphere, cube, or other geographic construct.”]
and wherein the filtering of the one or more profile connections comprises determining immediacy and space confluences between the one or more user profiles and the current user profile in view of the proximity setting, wherein a confluence of time and space results in users being proximate, [see at least Khan: (Para 0015) “The techniques described herein shift the existing paradigm of location to a new paradigm of proximity, by considering multiple dimensions such as place, time, order, occurrence, or affinity relative to people, objects, or locations”, (Para 0026) “ By filtering information based on user proximity and other factors, the PSN 100 can provide users with information that is relevant to them at their current location and at a current point in time”, (Para 0104) “Embodiments of the PSN go beyond straight-line distance to represent geographic proximity, such as by representing geographic proximity by using a hierarchically composed structure of spaces. Each space represents a region in two or three dimensional space, such as may be bounded by a polygon, circle, sphere, cube, or other geographic construct. Each space has a space coefficient or other measure of a cost, impediment, or time to travel through or in the space”]
wherein the proximity data, affinity data, or authenticity data [see at least Khan: (Para 0014) “Embodiments described herein provide enhanced computer- and network-based methods, systems, and techniques for providing users with relevant information and facilitating interactions based on proximity and social affinity.”]
and presenting, by the software platform and interface, an interface comprising a scrollable profile presentation of the one or more profile connections, [see at least Khan: (Figure 3Q), (Para 0075) “FIGS. 3Q-3S show social network information and management screens. In particular, FIG. 3Q shows a friends information screen 360.”]
wherein each profile of the one or more profile connections is presented in a customized form correlated to the current user profile based on the analysis of the psychological and experienced based user information. [see at least Khan: (Para 0136) “The PSN may provide a ranked or ordered view of friendships or other relationships, based on one or more factors, such as frequency/type of interaction, likes/dislikes received by the system, and the like. In addition, the PSN may suggest or recommend that a user take particular actions to maintain and/or develop friendships or other types of relationships”]
wherein the scrollable profile presentation presents[see at least Kahn: scrollable profiles: (Figure 3Q), (Para 0075) “FIGS. 3Q-3S show social network information and management screens. In particular, FIG. 3Q shows a friends information screen 360.”]
utilizing, by the software platform and interface, heat meter information [(Para 0072) “A user of the PSN can express affinity for a person or associated data in various ways. By selecting the appropriate controls of the menu 351, the user can indicate that he likes or dislikes the displayed person, their current status, or their displayed picture.”]
to determine the one or more profile connections, [(Para 0072) “The PSN may utilizes this information when determining how to aggregate feeds received from multiple persons, such that feeds from the more socially proximate persons are displayed prior to those more distant persons”]
wherein the heat meter is configured to be set to a plurality of settings by a user of the current user profile for each of the one or more user profiles, and [The limitation recites a heat meter can be set by specific user settings; see at least Khan: (Para 0072) “A user of the PSN can express affinity for a person or associated data in various ways. By selecting the appropriate controls of the menu 351, the user can indicate that he likes or dislikes the displayed person, their current status, or their displayed picture. The PSN may utilizes this information when determining how to aggregate feeds received from multiple persons, such that feeds from the more socially proximate persons are displayed prior to those more distant persons”, (Para 0160) “In at least some embodiments, the particular actions taken by the PSN can be configured by the user, such that the user can specify one or more actions to take in response to other actions initiated by the user”, (Para 0055) “The status control 311 provides information about the device user's current state, including name, status (e.g., "Out for lunch"), and visibility setting”, (Figure 3j), (Para 0065) “FIG. 3J shows a settings screen 335”]
wherein the software platform and interface is configured to notify the user of the current user profile and a user of a matched user profile of a mutual interest [see at least Khan (Para 0059) “FIG. 3F depicts another example notification screen 315 used to notify a user that one or more other users are proximately located. The notification screen 315 is similar to the notification screen 310 (FIG. 3E), except that the screen 315 includes a nearby friends control 316 as well as a nearby friends of friends control 317”, (Para 0063) “As noted, the PSN does not disclose exact location information for any users. Rather, once a first user is notified that a second user (e.g., a friend, a friend of a friend) is nearby, the first user can send the second user a meeting request, suggesting some nearby location where the two users can meet in person”]
While Khan teaches the data and information used in the method it does not explicitly teach extracting data from NFT assets associated with profiles. However, Prajapati teaches:
is extracted from one or more digital non-fungible token (NFT) assets associated with any of the one or more user profiles and the current user profile: [see at least Prajapati: (Para 0007) “The example computer-implemented method further includes identifying at least one user-associated data object associated with the first user profile identifier. The example computer-implemented method further includes identifying one or more transfers of the at least one target data object and at least one available data object that satisfies the first preference association associated with the first user profile identifier”, (Para 0045) “ Non-limiting examples of a transferable data object include a real-world product, collectible, item, commodity, furniture, and/or other property, and/or virtual item, virtual collectible, virtual data, virtual commodity, in-game item, a non-fungible token (NFT), and/or other virtual property.”]
a digital NFT asset as a profile picture for a profile of the one or more profile connections, and [See at least Prajapati (Para 0083) “In embodiments, the data of the transferable data object comprises one or more images (e.g., photographs of a physical object, one or more images embodying the transferred data object, such as an image associated with an NFT)”]
Therefore, 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 use of different data types (Khan) with extracting the data from NFT assets associated with profiles taught by (Prajapati). 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. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
While the combination of Khan and Prajapathi teach filtering connections based on proximity, it does not explicitly teach a viewable pinwheel interface. However, Sunday teaches:
through a pinwheel user interface, [see at least Sunday: (Figure 11A)]
wherein the scrollable profile presentation comprises a pinwheel presentation: and [see at least Sunday: (Figure 11A)]
Therefore, 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 filtering and presenting connections on a profile feed (Khan and Prajapati), with the method of presenting through a pinwheel user interface (Sunday). Simply substituting a different user interface style to present information would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill and produces a predictable result. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
While the combination of Khan, Prajapati, and Sunday teach a connection filtering system, it does not explicitly notifications being sent only when users have matching settings. However, Shah teaches:
only when both users have set their respective heat meters to a same setting for each other. [see at least Shah: (Para 0101) “John puts a transaction “DATE SEEK” from John for Nancy. Nancy puts a similar “DATE SEEK” transaction from Nancy for John and the disclosed System independently matches these intentions and reveals the identity/interest to each other on a match event.]
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 settings-based matching (Khan, Prajapati, and Sunday) with a notification feature based on identical settings (Shah). One of ordinary skill would have recognized the benefits of matching and notifying users with the same settings to more accurately match individuals. Therefore, one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the systems, rendering the claim obvious.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Khan, Prajapati, Sunday, and Shah teach the limitations of claim 1.
While Khan teaches determining and presenting connections based on user information, it does not explicitly teach digital NFT assets. However, Prajapati teaches:
wherein each of the one or more digital NFT assets comprises a digital file and a NFT that certifies the digital file. [(Para 0083) “In embodiments, the data of the transferable data object comprises one or more images (e.g., photographs of a physical object, one or more images embodying the transferred data object, such as an image associated with an NFT), the condition of the transferable data object, a text description of the transferable data object, a blockchain wallet address, decryption key, and/or the like for accessing a data object, and/or the requirements for object resource values to obtain the transferable data object via transfer (e.g., a price for the object).”]
Therefore, 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 determining and presenting connections based on user information taught by Khan, with the use of NFTs taught by Prajapati. 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. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Khan, Prajapati, Sunday, and Shah teach the limitations of claim 1, Khan further teaches:
further comprising: utilizing heat meter information [(Para 0072) “A user of the PSN can express affinity for a person or associated data in various ways. By selecting the appropriate controls of the menu 351, the user can indicate that he likes or dislikes the displayed person, their current status, or their displayed picture.”] to determine the one or more profile connections between the one or more user profiles and the current user profile. [(Para 0072) “The PSN may utilizes this information when determining how to aggregate feeds received from multiple persons, such that feeds from the more socially proximate persons are displayed prior to those more distant persons”]
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Khan, Prajapati, Sunday, and Shah teach the limitations of claim 1, Khan further teaches:
wherein the user interface presents a selected profile and a profile feed [(Figure 3Q), (Para 0075) “FIGS. 3Q-3S show social network information and management screens. In particular, FIG. 3Q shows a friends information screen 360.”]
upon selection of one of the one or more profile connections presented by the scrollable profile presentation. [(Figure 3Q), (Para 0075) “FIGS. 3Q-3S show social network information and management screens. In particular, FIG. 3Q shows a friends information screen 360.”]
While Khan teaches a selectable user interface with a scrollable profile presentation, it does not explicitly teach the feed comprising an NFT asset. However, Prajapati teaches:
comprising at least one or more digital non-fungible token (NFT) assets [(Para 0045) “Non-limiting examples of a transferable data object include a real-world product, collectible, item, commodity, furniture, and/or other property, and/or virtual item, virtual collectible, virtual data, virtual commodity, in-game item, a non-fungible token (NFT), and/or other virtual property.”]
Therefore, 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 determining and presenting connections on a profile feed taught by Khan, to include profiles with NFTs taught by Prajapati. 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. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 21, the combination of Khan, Prajapati, Sunday, and Shah teach the limitations of claim 1, Khan further teaches:
wherein filtering of the one or more profile connections proximity comprises determining immediacy and space confluences between the immediacy and space factors of one or more user profiles and the immediacy and space factors of the current user profile. [Para 0025) “The PSN 100 can filter information based on user proximity”, (Para 0026) “By filtering information based on user proximity and other factors, the PSN 100 can provide users with information that is relevant to them at their current location and at a current point in time”, (Para 0018) “For example, the proximity determiner 112 may determine that two users are in proximity to one another if they are within a reasonable walking distance”, (Para 0104) “Each space has a space coefficient or other measure of a cost, impediment, or time to travel through or in the space.”]
Regarding Claim 22, the combination of Khan, Prajapati, Sunday, and Shah teach the limitations of claim 1, Khan further teaches:
wherein the authenticity data comprises verified activity and assertions by the one or more user profiles [(Para 0176) “the PSN 100 has the ability to generate specific, time, location, or activity based questions that can only be answered correctly by an authentic user”]
wherein the affinity data comprises likes, values, and comforts shared between the one or more user profiles, [see at least Khan: (Para 0018) “As another example, the proximity determiner 112 may consider a user's actual or predicted affinity for a particular geographic area, based on the intuition that a user may be more willing to travel into or through an area that holds a particular attraction for the user, for example because the user likes shops, restaurants, or other users that are situated in the area”, (Para 0104) “The affinity coefficient can be based on various factors, including past behaviors (e.g., how often the user has traveled to the space), social proximity (e.g., how many friends live or work in the space), personal interests (e.g., whether the space has or includes destinations that serve the user's interests), and the like”]
and wherein the proximity data comprises a close physical immediacy by correlating a time and a space of the one or more user profiles. [see at least Khan: (Para 0015) “The techniques described herein shift the existing paradigm of location to a new paradigm of proximity, by considering multiple dimensions such as place, time, order, occurrence, or affinity relative to people, objects, or locations”]
Regarding Claim 26, the combination of Khan, Prajapati, Sunday, and Shah teach the limitations of claim 1.
While the combination of Khan, Prajapati, and Sunday teach a matching system, it does not explicitly teach anonymity in matching. However, Shah teaches:
further comprising: receiving, by the software platform and interface, a first introduction from the current user profile directed to a selected user profile of the one or more profile connections, wherein the first introduction is configured to not reveal an identity of the current user profile to the selected user profile; [see at least Shah: (Para 0101) “Assuming they are shy and not able to expose their intention to each other directly, both of them will put a message into the blackbox matching engine knowing that they will not be exposed until a mutual interest matches from both of them. John puts a transaction “DATE SEEK” from John for Nancy.”]
and pairing, by the software platform and interface, the first introduction with a second introduction from the selected user profile directed to the current user profile only when the second introduction is received, and upon pairing, revealing the identity of the current user profile to the selected user profile and the identity of the selected user profile to the current user profile. [see at least Shah: (Para 0101) “and the disclosed System independently matches these intentions and reveals the identity/interest to each other on a match event.”]
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 matching system (Khan, Prajapati, and Sunday) with privacy features (Shah). One of ordinary skill would have recognized the benefits of privacy and anonymity in user matching to account for user preference and safety, yielding predictable results. Therefore, one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the systems, rendering the claim obvious
Regarding Claim 27, the combination of Khan, Prajapati, Sunday, and Shah teach the limitations of claim 1, Khan further teaches:
wherein when a confluence of time and space exists between the current user profile and a user profile of the one or more user profiles, the current user profile and the user profile are determined to be in the room together. [see at least Khan: (Para 0104) “Embodiments of the PSN go beyond straight-line distance to represent geographic proximity, such as by representing geographic proximity by using a hierarchically composed structure of spaces. Each space represents a region in two or three dimensional space, such as may be bounded by a polygon, circle, sphere, cube, or other geographic construct. Each space has a space coefficient or other measure of a cost, impediment, or time to travel through or in the space”, (Para 0130) “In dynamic proximity, a distance measure used to determine when users are within proximity of each other changes dynamically in response to various factors, such as population density, user inputs, user affinity, or the like. For example, in less densely populated areas (e.g., suburbs, rural areas), a larger radius (e.g., 2000 meters) may be used, whereas in more densely populated areas (e.g., urban cores, shopping malls), a smaller radius (e.g., 200 meters) may be used”]
Regarding Claim 28, the combination of Khan, Prajapati, Sunday, and Shah teach the limitations of claim 1, Khan further teaches:
wherein the proximity data comprises time thresholds, wherein attendance is measured based on arrival, duration, and departure metrics according to the immediacy factor and the space factor. [(Para 0093) “For example, if the PSN determines that two users have similar travel patterns (e.g., traveling from about the same origin location to about the same destination location at about the same times)”]
Regarding Claim 29, the combination of Khan, Prajapati, Sunday, and Shah teach the limitations of claim 1, Khan further teaches:
wherein the space factor comprises a distance setting at which user devices associated with the one or more user profiles are considered proximate to a user device associated with the current user profile, wherein the proximity setting enables the software platform and interface to differentiate whether users are at a relative location [see at least Khan: (Para 0130) “As another example, a user may specify by user input that he wishes to use a larger or smaller distance measure, in order to filter out more or fewer other users.”]
Regarding Claim 30, the combination of Khan, Prajapati, Sunday, and Shah teach the limitations of claim 1, Khan further teaches:
wherein when a user of the one or more user profiles leaves a proximity defined by the proximity setting, the user is excluded from the filtered profile set of the current user profile. [see at least Khan: (Para 0130) “In dynamic proximity, a distance measure used to determine when users are within proximity of each other changes dynamically in response to various factors, such as population density, user inputs, user affinity, or the like. For example, in less densely populated areas (e.g., suburbs, rural areas), a larger radius (e.g., 2000 meters) may be used, whereas in more densely populated areas (e.g., urban cores, shopping malls), a smaller radius (e.g., 200 meters) may be used. As another example, a user may specify by user input that he wishes to use a larger or smaller distance measure, in order to filter out more or fewer other users”, (Para 0081) “In another embodiment, each client device transmits its location at regular intervals or whenever the client device has moved more than a specified distance. In such an approach, the PSN will receive more frequent updates when a user is on the move, so that the user's position can be tracked in a more finely grained manner”]
Regarding Claim 31, the combination of Khan, Prajapati, Sunday, and Shah teach the limitations of claim 1, Khan further teaches:
wherein the filtering based on the proximity setting determines users that are in the room together based on the confluence of time and space, and wherein users that are not in the room together are classified as distant and excluded from the filtered profile set. [see at least: (Para 0130) “As another example, a user may specify by user input that he wishes to use a larger or smaller distance measure, in order to filter out more or fewer other users”, (Para 0104) “Each space represents a region in two or three dimensional space, such as may be bounded by a polygon, circle, sphere, cube, or other geographic construct.”]
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
/SANGEETA BAHL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
