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 a request for continued examination filed 01/23/2026 regarding application 18/555,390 filed 10/13/2023. Claims 2, 6-7,14-16, 18-20, and 23-24 are canceled. New claims 25-31 are added. Claims 1, 3, 11, 17, and 22, are amended and hereby entered. No claims are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Regarding 35 USC 101:
The applicant submits the claims recite a three-dimensional distance vector calculation. However, there is no calculation recited. The claims define a space factor as a distance vector setting (a value that is set) to determine if profiles are within a defined radius of a user device. There is no calculation of X, Y, Z coordinates recited by the method. The claims recite a filtering step based on a setting in the user profile, in which the setting is a distance vector. Filtering based on settings to present choices to a user fall under the mental process of collecting information, analyzing, and displaying results. Therefore, the claims still recite an abstract idea.
Further, the applicant submits there is integration into a practical application because of the specific technical solution: “filtering profile connections using a distance vector setting in three dimensions to determine whether user devices are within a defined radius of a user device…”. However, this claim element is directed to the abstract idea not an additional element that can integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The only additional elements present are the general-purpose computing components, with no technical improvements to computers and computing technology. Therefore, the claims do not recite a technical improvement and fall under 2106.05(f) “apply it”.
Further, the applicant submits the additional elements amount to significantly more because of the three-dimensional spatial calculations between user devices to filter profile connections. However as aforementioned, the claims do not recite a calculation. Instead, they recite a filtering step based on a setting in the user profile, in which the setting is a distance vector. Therefore, there is no technical improvement or improvement to the technical field as the argued features are not recited in the claims.
Further, the applicant submits by way of example claim 25 and 26 now utilize heat meter matching features comprising technical operations that cannot be performed mentally; However, these matching features, are not technical features as they are directed to the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity, including managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). In light of the applicants’ amendments and arguments, independent claims which include similar features, are now interpreted to include this abstract idea, see 35 USC 101 rejection below.
Regarding 35 USC 102/103:
The applicant submits Khan does not teach the newly amended features of Claim 1. The amendments which further clarify proximity-based filtering feature can still be found in Khan albeit in other areas of the reference. Khan teaches a distance vector in three-dimensional space and filtering comprising both immediacy and space confluences resulting in proximity, see 35 USC 102 rejection below with additional citations for the amended portions.
Similarly, the applicant submits Khan does not teach “a confluence of time and space results in a user being proximate”. However, the simply recite a junction of these two measures which is shown in Khan, see at least paragraph 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”. Therefore, the examiner respectfully disagrees 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, 3-5, 8-13, 17, 21-22, and 25-31 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 claims (1, 11, and 17) recite 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 claims (1, 11, and 17) recite 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” and “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.
In regards to the dependent claims
Claim 13 introduces the new additional element “Phone”. However, this falls under the same analysis present in Step 2A Prong 2, as the “phone” merely acts as a modality to implement the abstract idea (i.e., the phone screen is used as a way to view the abstract idea).
Claims 3-5, 8-10, 12, 21-22, and 25-31 introduce no 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, 8, 17, 21-22, and 27-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Khan (US 20110238755 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”]
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”]
Regarding Claim 8, 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 17, Khan teaches:
A system comprising: a memory storing a software platform and interface as program code; and one or more processors executing the program code to cause the system to perform: generating a user interface [(Para 0045) “At block 254, the process presents information about the one or more users”]
comprising a heat meter configured to be set to a plurality of settings for each profile of a plurality of user profiles that the program code determined to be a match based on an analysis of psychological and experienced based user information comprising proximity data, affinity data, and authenticity data of the plurality of user profiles with respect to a current user profile. [(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 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,”]
and based on a filtering of one or more profile connections based on a proximity setting comprising an immediacy factor and a space factor 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”]
wherein the space factor comprises a distance vector setting in three dimensions to determine whether user devices associated with the plurality of 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 filterinq comprises determining immediacy and space confluences between the plurality of user profiles and the current user profile, 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”]
Regarding Claim 21, 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, 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 27, 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, 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, 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, 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, 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.”]
Claims 3-4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khan (US 20110238755 A1) in view of Prajapati (US 20210311931 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Khan teaches the limitations set forth above, Khan further teaches:
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.”]
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.”]
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 taught by 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.
Regarding Claim 4, Khan in view of Prajapati teach the limitations of claim 3
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 9, Khan teaches 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.
Claims 5 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khan (US 20110238755 A1) in view of Sunday (US 20070220444 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Khan teaches the limitations of claim 1
While Khan teaches filtering profile connections based on proximity, it does not explicitly teach a viewable pinwheel interface. However, Sunday teaches:
wherein the filtered profile set is viewable through a pinwheel user interface [(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, taught by Khan, with the method of presenting through a pinwheel user interface taught by 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.
Regarding Claim 11, Khan teaches:
A system comprising: a memory storing a software platform and interface as program code; and one or more processors executing the program code to cause the system to perform: [(Figure 9)]
Generating a user interface… of user profiles determined based on an analysis of psychological and experienced based user information comprising proximity data, affinity data, and authenticity data of the user profiles with respect to a current user profile, [(Figure 3Q), (Para 0075) “FIGS. 3Q-3S show social network information and management screens. In particular, FIG. 3Q shows a friends information screen 360”, (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,”]
and based on a filtering one or more profile connections based on a proximity setting comprising an immediacy factor and a space factor 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”]
wherein the space factor comprises a distance vector setting in three dimensions to determine whether user devices associated with the 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 comprises determining immediacy and space confluences between the user profiles and the current user profile, 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”]
While Khan teaches generating an interface of user profiles based on user information, it does not explicitly teach the generated interface being in a pinwheel presentation format. However, Sunday teaches:
generating a user interface comprising a pinwheel presentation [(Figure 11A)]
the pinwheel presentation configured to free scroll through the user profiles in a clock or counter clock wise direction. [Figure 11A-B), (Para 0051) “Alternatively, or in addition, button 1102 may be moveable around interface 1101. For example, as illustrated in FIG. 11b, button 1102 may be moved around a perimeter of interface 1101 to rest at a different position”]
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 generating an interface of user profiles based on user information, taught by Khan, with a pinwheel user interface taught by 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.
Regarding Claim 12, Khan in view of Sunday teach the limitations of claim 11, Khan further teaches:
scroll through the user profiles. [(Figure 3Q)]
While Khan teaches a scrollable user profiles, it does not explicitly teach, a left right finger motion for a clockwise/counterclockwise scroll. However, Sunday teaches:
wherein a left or right finger motion on a lead, central profile creates a clockwise or counterclockwise. [Figure 11A-B), (Para 0051) “Alternatively, or in addition, button 1102 may be moveable around interface 1101. For example, as illustrated in FIG. 11b, button 1102 may be moved around a perimeter of interface 1101 to rest at a different position”]
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 generating a scrollable interface of user profiles, taught by Khan, with a pinwheel user interface using a clockwise and counterclockwise scroll taught by 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.
Regarding Claim 13, Khan in view of Sunday teach the limitations of claim 11, Khan further teaches:
wherein a profile in a central frame of a viewing screen of a phone is accompanied by profile information of that profile. [(Para 0076) “The menu 362 includes controls (e.g., buttons) to initiate communication (e.g., "IM," and "Request Number"), to indicate (dis)like for the person (e.g., "Like Person," "Un-like Person"), to access information about or provided by the person (e.g., "Profile Info," "Feed History")]
Claims 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khan (US 20110238755 A1) in view of Sunday (US 20070220444 A1) in further view of Prajapati (US 20210311931 A1)
Regarding Claim 10, Khan teaches the limitations of claim 1, Khan further teaches:
for a profile of the one or more profile connections, [(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.”]
While Khan teaches connected profiles in a scrollable presentation, it does not explicitly teach a digital NFT as a profile picture or a pinwheel presentation. However, Sunday teaches:
and wherein the scrollable profile presentation comprises a pinwheel presentation. [(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 presenting an interface of user profiles taught by Khan, with a pinwheel user interface taught by 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 Khan in view of Sunday teach presenting profiles in a pinwheel format, it does not explicitly teach a digital NFT as a profile picture. However, Prajapati teaches:
a digital NFT asset as a profile picture [(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 method of determining and presenting connections on a profile feed in a pinwheel presentation taught by Khan in view of Sunday, to include profiles with digital NFT assets pictures 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.
Claims 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khan (US 20110238755 A1) in view of Shah (US 20200273124 A1)
Regarding Claim 25, Khan further teaches:
further comprising: 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, [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”]
and 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”]
The claims recite a heat meter being a configuration of user settings. While Khan teaches a configuration of settings, information, and notifications to users, it does not explicitly teach the 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) 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.
Regarding Claim 26, Khan teaches the limitations of claim 1,
While Khan teaches 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) 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.
Conclusion
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