DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
The office action is being examined in response to the application filed by the Applicant on September 4, 2024.
Claims 1- 108 are pending and have been examined.
This action is made NON-FINAL.
The Examiner would like to note that this application is now being handled by Examiner Ivonnemary Rivera González.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on April 29, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
At least the instant independent claims 1, 33, 65 and 106 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 7, 16 and 25 of U.S. Patent No. 11895115 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are not patentably distinct from each other because the differences between the claims are considered to be anticipated as set forth below:
Instant claims
Co-pending or reference claims
(US 11895115 B2)
Claims 1, 33, 65 and 106: A system for limiting matches between users in a networked environment, comprising, in a first network-connected hardware processing device operated by a first user: (claim 65)
an input device, configured to receive input from the first user; and
a processor, communicatively coupled to the input device, configured to:
determine whether the first user has reached a limit of concurrent matches, wherein each match represents a bidirectional connection between the first user and another user;
responsive to the first user not having reached the limit of concurrent matches representing bidirectional connections, make the first user visible to other users; and
responsive to the first user having reached the limit of concurrent matches representing bidirectional connections, make the first user invisible to other users.
Claims 7, 16 and 25: A system for limiting matches between users in a networked environment, comprising, in a first network-connected device operated by a first user: (claim 25)
an input device, configured to receive input from the first user requesting that a unidirectional indication of interest in a second user be transmitted;
a processor, communicatively coupled to the input device, configured to:
determining whether the first user has reached a limit of concurrent matches, wherein each match represents a bidirectional connection between the first user and another user;
responsive to the first user not having reached the limit of concurrent matches representing bidirectional connections, make the first user visible to other users;
responsive to the first user having reached the limit of concurrent matches representing bidirectional connections, make the first user invisible to other users;
receiving input from a first user requesting that a unidirectional indication of interest in a second user be transmitted;
responsive to the first user having reached the limit of concurrent matches representing bidirectional connections: decline the request to transmit the unidirectional indication of interest; and
a network communication component, communicatively coupled to the processor, configured to, responsive to the first user not having reached the limit of concurrent matches representing bidirectional connections, transmit the unidirectional indication of interest.
Consequently, for instant claims 1, 33, 65 and 106 are covered by US 11895115 B2 and its claims 17, 16 and 25. Thus, these instant claims are anticipated by the patent reference 7, 16 and 25 because both applicant’s pending application and the reference patent cover every feature claim in which the instant claims are broadly recited and encompass the same disclosed technology. Moreover, both the instant claims and the reference claims share similar invention titles which are directed to a method and a system for selecting and displaying dating profiles based on matching limits determined at a dating application. In other words, as the reference system claimed, allows to place limits “on the number of matches (also referred to as "strong connections") a user may have at any given time” in a “dating application” in order to make user profiles “be made available and therefore visible to other individuals”, once again (see ¶0007 and ¶0018from both the instant and reference specs). Thus, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), this invention scope in the instant claims 1, 33, 65 and 106 are covered by the independent reference claims 7, 16 and 25 from US 11895115 B2 (see MPEP 804 (II)(B)(2) for more details).
Drawings
The drawings filed on April 22, 2024 are acceptable subject to correction of the informalities indicated below. In order to avoid abandonment of this application, correction is required in reply to the Office action. The correction will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because Figs. 6B - 6H, 6J - 6N and 7C - 7D from the drawings are not legible or readable. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure(s) or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Color photographs and color drawings are not accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. Any such petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h), one set of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if submitted via EFS-Web or three sets of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if not submitted via EFS-Web, and, unless already present, an amendment to include the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings section of the specification:
The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.
Color photographs will be accepted if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 - 108 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The analysis of this claimed invention recited in the claims begins in view of independent claims 65, 75 and 85 which are the most representative claims of the independent claims set 1, 11, 21, 33, 43, 53, 65, 75, 85, 106, 107 and 108, as follows:
At Step 1: Claims 1, 11, 21 and 106 – 108 falls under statutory category of a process. Claims 65, 75 and 85 are considered a system and claims 33, 43 and 53 are directed to an article of manufacture.
At Step 2A Prong 1: Claims 65, 75 and 85 recites an abstract idea, which is defined by the following underlined elements (e.g. functional steps) while omitting any hardware components (e.g. represented as “…”):
For Claim 65 (representative of claims 1, 33 and 106)
…receive input from the first user; and
…determine whether the first user has reached a limit of concurrent matches, wherein each match represents a bidirectional connection between the first user and another user;
responsive to the first user not having reached the limit of concurrent matches representing bidirectional connections, make the first user visible to other users; and
responsive to the first user having reached the limit of concurrent matches representing bidirectional connections, make the first user invisible to other users.
For Claim 75 (representative of claims 11, 43 and 107)
…select a second user as a potential match to be displayed for a first user; and
determine whether the first user has reached a limit of concurrent matches, wherein each match represents a bidirectional connection between the first user and another user;
…responsive to the first user not having reached the limit of concurrent matches representing bidirectional connections: display, for the first user, a profile describing the second user; and
concurrently with displaying the profile describing the second user, display…for initiating transmission of a unidirectional indication of interest in the second user; and
responsive to the first user having reached the limit of concurrent matches:
display, for the first user, the profile describing the second user without displaying any user interface element for initiating transmission of a unidirectional indication of interest in the second user;
…receive input from the first user; and
…receiving input from the first user activating the user interface element,
transmit the unidirectional indication of interest.
For Claim 85 (representative of claims 21, 53 and 108)
…receive input from the first user to invoke functionality to view profiles representing other users;
…determine whether the first user has reached a limit of concurrent matches, wherein each match represents a bidirectional connection between the first user and another user;
…responsive to the first user not having reached the limit of concurrent matches representing bidirectional connections:
display, for the first user, profiles representing other users; and
concurrently with displaying each profile, display a user interface element for initiating transmission of a unidirectional indication of interest in the user represented by the profile; and
…receiving input from the first user activating the user interface element,
transmit the unidirectional indication of interest to a second user;
wherein, responsive to the first user having reached the limit of concurrent matches representing bidirectional connections…decline to display profiles representing other users.
Generally, these limitations, describe a method and a system for selecting and displaying dating profiles based on matching limits determined at a dating application. As disclosed in the specification in ¶0007 and ¶0018, this claimed invention allows to place limits “on the number of matches (also referred to as "strong connections") a user may have at any given time” in a “dating application” in order to make user profiles “be made available and therefore visible to other individuals”, once again. However, the abstract idea(s) of a certain method of organizing human activity (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II) are/is recited in claims 65, 75 and 85 in the form of “commercial or legal interactions”. Specifically, the abstract idea is recited in at least in the steps of “determine whether the first user has reached a limit of concurrent matches…” in order to “make the first user visible or invisible”, display a “second user profile” and display a “user interface element” or not, that when activated by the user transmits “unidirectional indications of interest”. Thus, these steps directed to manage user profile visibility based on concurrent matches limits at least encompasses commercial interactions related to business relations and advertisements of other user profiles as potential matches. Similarly, these steps also fall under the abstract idea sub-group of “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” since whether to “display” user dating profiles (e.g. visible or invisible) based on concurrent matches limits determination encompasses user social activities.
At least the steps of “determine whether the first user has reached a limit of concurrent matches…” (from claims 65, 75 and 85), “select a second user as a potential match to be displayed…” (from claim 75) and “wherein responsive to the first user having reached the limit of concurrent matches representing bidirectional connections…decline to display profiles representing other users” (from claim 85) fall under the abstract idea of mental processes that can be practically be performed in the human mind or in pen and paper (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III). Because selecting a second user as a potential match, determining concurrent matches limits for a first user and based on these limits being reached decline the display of other user profiles encompass at least evaluation and judgement. Also, these steps can either be done with the help of physical aid such as pen and paper or can be performed by humans without or with the assistance (e.g. tool) a computer. Thus, the steps does not negate and further still reads in the mental nature of the limitation(s), when obtaining such information, as well as the concept is merely claimed to be performed on a generic computer and is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept of displaying user profiles based on limits of concurrent matches of the first user to whether display other user profiles in a dating application (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B & C)).
At Step 2A Prong 2: For independent claims 65, 75 and 85, The judicial exception(s) or abstract idea previously identified is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04 (d)). The claims recite the additional element(s) of an input device, (from claims 65, 75 and 85); a processor (from claims 65, 75 and 85); a first network-connected hardware processing device (from claims 65, 75 and 85), an output device and a network communication component (from claims 75 and 85). These additional elements, individually and in combination, and while considering the claims as a whole, are merely used as a tool to perform the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Specifically, these limitation steps are recited as being performed by the computer. The computer used is recited at a high level of generality that is being used as a tool to perform the generic computer functions for selecting user profiles and displaying user profiles while receiving user inputs and transmitting unidirectional indications. Thus, these steps mentioned above are further describing and applying the abstract idea without placing any limits on how the technological components are being improved, while distinguishing in the claim language, the performing limitations from functions that generic computer components can perform.
Finally, the steps of “…receive input from the first user” (from claims 65, 75 and 85), “…display, for the first user, a profile …” (from claims 65, 75 and 85), “…display a user interface element for initiating transmission of a unidirectional indication of interest in the second user…” (from claims 75 and 85), and “transmit the unidirectional indication of interest to a second user…” (from claim 85) in the representative claim is really nothing more than links to computer for implementing the use of ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components (refer to MPEP 2106.05 f (2)). Thus, in these limitation steps, the computer is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer.
Therefore, this analysis is indicative of the fact that even when viewed in combination, the claims’ additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea or judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: For independent claims 65, 75 and 85, these claims do not provide an inventive concept. The recited additional elements of the claim(s) are the following: an input device, (from claims 53, 65, 75 and 85); a processor (from claims 65, 75 and 85); a first network-connected hardware processing device (from claims 1, 11, 33, 43, 53, 65, 75, 85 and 106 – 107), an output device and a network communication component (from claims 75 and 85. These additional elements are not sufficient to amount significantly more than the judicial exception or abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05). Because, as indicated in Step 2A Prong 2, these additional element(s) claimed are merely, instructions to “apply” the abstract ideas, which cannot provide an inventive concept. Also, the recitation of a computer to perform the claim limitations amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Thus, even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, which do not provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
For dependent claims 2-10, 12 - 20, 22 - 32, 34 - 42, 44 - 52, 54 - 64, 66 - 74, 76 - 84 and 86 -105, the same analysis is incorporated. Due to their dependency to the independent claims analyzed, these claims cover or fall under the same abstract idea(s) of a method of organizing human activity and mental processes. They describe additional limitations steps of:
Claims 2-10, 12 - 20, 22 - 32, 34 - 42, 44 - 52, 54 - 64, 66 - 74, 76 - 84 and 86 -105: further describes the abstract idea of the method for limiting matches between users wherein user inputs are received, unidirectional indications of interest are transmitted and are responded to prospective matches selected and displayed and establish a match (e.g. bidirectional connections between users) which include incrementing/ match counters and condition limit determinations, by initiating a communication channel. Also, matches are further described when these are indicated to be terminated and while decrementing match counters, and when matching limits are reached making users visible/invisible and unavailable to be matched as well as sending messages with this status to other users. Limits of concurrent matches are further described in three different levels for current status, experience and service tier that can also be changed. Thus, being directed to the abstract idea group of “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” as it is directed to managing user profile visibility and display based on concurrent matches limits that encompasses commercial interactions related to business relations and advertisements of other user profiles as potential matches as well as mental processes that require determinations that are based on evaluation and judgement.
Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B: For dependent claims 3 – 4, 6 – 7, 12 – 13, 15 – 16, 24 – 25, 27 – 28, 34 – 36, 38 – 39, 44 – 45, 47 – 48, 56 – 57, 59 – 60, 66 – 68, 70 – 71, 76 – 77, 79 – 80, 88 – 89 and 91 - 92, these claims recite the additional elements of: an input device, (from claims 34 and 66); a second network-connected hardware processing device (from claims 3, 12, 24, 35, 44, 56, 67, 76 and 88); a communication channel (from claims 4, 6, 13, 15, 25, 27, 36, 38, 45, 47, 57, 59, 68, 70, 77, 79, 89 and 91); a dating software application (from claims 7, 16, 28, 39, 48, 60, 71, 80 and 92). These additional elements recited are invoking computers merely used as a tool to perform or “apply” the abstract idea(s) to the existing process of receiving signals related to responses and user inputs, establish matches and transmit unidirectional indications. Thus, amounting to no more than mere instructions to “apply” the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f) and (f)(2)). Accordingly, for the same reasons stated above, these additional element(s) claimed cannot provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Finally, the additional elements previously mentioned above, are nothing more than descriptive language about the elements that define the abstract idea, and these claims remain rejected under 101 as well.
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 1-108 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim (U.S. Pub No. 20100088246 A1) in view of Ding (U.S. Pub No. 20200344214 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 33, 65 and 106:
This independent claim set is represented by claim 65
Lim teaches:
an input device, configured to receive input from the first user; and (In ¶0132 – 133; Fig. 6A (1101); Fig. 6B (1111); Fig. 7 (1211); Fig. 10 (1400 – 1421 and 1407 – 1408): teaches that “a user will first initiate a search for another user by inputting into the system certain criteria data that the user finds desirable” at step 1101 and in step 1111, “a user can input specific rendezvous information including a specific day, time, and/or event for which the searching user wants companionship”, in accordance to ¶0033 from Applicant disclosure. Refer to ¶0081 wherein a “recipient must give a response (goose, duck, or block) to a contact request within a fixed period of time (e.g. 24 hours) otherwise it becomes an Autoduck” which the response is another receiving input example.)
a processor, communicatively coupled to the input device, configured to: determine whether the first user has reached a limit of concurrent matches, wherein each match represents a bidirectional connection between the first user and another user; (In ¶0139; Fig. 9 (1373); Fig. 10 (1401): teaches that the system does not allow a user to “have more than a set number of outgoing date requests 1373 in outgoing request queue 410” and this number can be set and modified by “administrator of the system” based on “the size of the user population” and in step 1401, “the system checks whether the number of pending requests is greater than three”, for example. Refer to ¶0087 also.)
responsive to the first user not having reached the limit of concurrent matches representing bidirectional connections, make the first user visible to other users; and (In ¶0139; Fig. 9 (1373 and 1375); Fig. 10 (1404 and 1406): teaches that “If the user does not have more than three pending requests and the user has sufficient tokens to pay for the communication then the system will allow the request” and “In step 1403, the system places the request in the user's outgoing date request queue 410” which is reflected in “step 1406” wherein, “the system presents the request to the receiving user by placing the request in the receiving user's incoming date request queue 412” which is directed to having the first user visible to other users.)
Lim discloses reaching a limit of matches in ¶0087 wherein “users can only request a limited number (e.g. 3) of contact requests (goose requests) at one time” which “minimizes date spamming and places a value on contact requests as a limited resource that encourages users to carefully evaluate (e.g. compatibility, availability, and/or rating) their contact requests”. However, Lim does not explicitly teach the first user becoming specifically invisible, after reaching such limit of matches. Thus, Ding teaches:
responsive to the first user having reached the limit of concurrent matches representing bidirectional connections, make the first user invisible to other users. (In ¶0043 – 44; Fig. 12C: teaches that as shown in Figs. 12A – 12C, the user can add a limited number of users or “crushes” into their “concealed list of persons 109”, after the other person add the user “to their own concealed list 117” in order to make the other person aware (e.g. the user is visible; see ¶0043 – 44). But, when the user reaches the limit number of “crushes”, the user has to wait an amount of time before “the user will be able to add a new person to the crush list” which suggests that the user won’t be visible to other users if their list is saturated or completed, based on the system’s “removal rules” that can be applied and configured by an “administrator” that can include how a user is shown (e.g. directed to user being invisible) in other users’ crush list, in accordance to the examples given in ¶0139 and ¶0159 from Applicant disclosure. Also, refer to ¶0045 for an example wherein “the user 113 is made aware of an anonymous crush or lists someone who does not express a mutual interest within a week or a month or some other time period, the indication of interest may expire and those persons may be removed from the anonymous user's or other user's concealed list of persons” which is another example of the user not being visible in other user’s crush lists.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lim to provide the ability of making the first user invisible after the limit of matches has been reached, as taught by Ding in order to “prohibit the user 113 from simply identifying everyone in their list of friends and may constrain the user to choose only those persons in whom the user is truly interested” as well as “to maintain the privacy of the user's friends” (¶0037 – 38; Ding) through “concealed interactions” that are “encrypted, protected by gating credentials, or otherwise removed from the general public” (¶0016; Ding).
Regarding claims 11, 43, 75 and 107:
This independent claim set is represented by claim 75
Lim teaches:
in a first network-connected hardware processing device operated by a first user: a processor, configured to: (In ¶0105; Fig. 1: teaches “a computer server 101 connected to a database 102 connected to the internet 103” wherein the user can connect and access “the server”: which is “programmed to allow communications in the social network to users actively using mobile devices in a common geographic location” (see ¶0147 – 148), based on examples given in ¶0031 from Applicant disclosure.)
select a second user as a potential match to be displayed for a first user; and (In ¶0134; Fig. 7 (1211 and 1212): teaches that upon searching users filtered by entered criteria a list of profiles is returned, in “step 1211, the searching user selects to view the characteristic data, or “profile,” of another user who was in the list of users returned by the system” and “in step 1212, the system then displays the selected user's profile on the screen”.)
determine whether the first user has reached a limit of concurrent matches, wherein each match represents a bidirectional connection between the first user and another user; (In ¶0139; Fig. 9 (1373); Fig. 10 (1401): teaches that the system does not allow a user to “have more than a set number of outgoing date requests 1373” (e.g. “an initiation of an interaction or communication with another member”) in “outgoing request queue 410” and this number can be set and modified by “administrator of the system” based on “the size of the user population” and in step 1401, “the system checks whether the number of pending requests is greater than three”, for example. Refer to ¶0087 also.)
an output device, communicatively coupled to the processor, configured to: responsive to the first user not having reached the limit of concurrent matches representing bidirectional connections: display, for the first user, a profile describing the second user; and (In ¶0134; Fig. 7 (1212 – 1215); Fig. 9 (1373); Fig. 10 (1403): teaches that the system upon checking if the “does not have more than three pending requests and the user has sufficient tokens to pay for the communication then the system will allow the request” wherein the system “places the request in the user's outgoing date request queue 410” in step 1403 and as shown in Fig. 9 (see ¶0139). Thus, these requests include the display of a second user profile via the “the “view me” page 207 of the selected user” in step 1212 with whom the user initiated a “request to communicate with the selected user by pressing the selected user's “Goose me” button 509” in step 1215. The Examiner notes that the output device claimed is interpreted as a user interface, in accordance to the examples given in ¶0173 from Applicant disclosure.)
concurrently with displaying the profile describing the second user, display a user interface element for initiating transmission of a unidirectional indication of interest in the second user; and (In ¶0134; Fig. 7 (1215); Fig. 5 (509): teaches in “step 1215, the user initiates a request to communicate with the selected user by pressing the selected user's “Goose me” button 509” which is directed to the user interface element as shown in Fig. 5. Refer to ¶0126 and ¶0128 for more details.)
an input device, communicatively coupled to the processor, configured to receive input from the first user; and (In ¶0132 – 133; Fig. 6A (1101); Fig. 6B (1111); Fig. 7 (1211); Fig. 10 (1400 – 1421 and 1407 – 1408): teaches that “a user will first initiate a search for another user by inputting into the system certain criteria data that the user finds desirable” at step 1101 and in step 1111, “a user can input specific rendezvous information including a specific day, time, and/or event for which the searching user wants companionship”, in accordance to ¶0033 from Applicant disclosure. Refer to ¶0081 wherein a “recipient must give a response (goose, duck, or block) to a contact request within a fixed period of time (e.g. 24 hours) otherwise it becomes an Autoduck” which the response is another receiving input example.)
a network communication component, communicatively coupled to the processor, configured to, responsive to the input device receiving input from the first user activating the user interface element, (In ¶0128; Fig.1; Fig. 5 (509); Fig. 7 (1215); Fig. 9 (1373 and 1371): teaches that the user can press the “Goose me” button 509 which “will request a communication exchange with the user who is “goosed” (the person who owns the profile on which the “Goose me” button 509 was pressed)”. See ¶0130 for an example wherein “User A may initiate a “goose” request to User B” and ¶0147 for more details about these communications exchanged in a social network via the internet (see Fig. 1).)
transmit the unidirectional indication of interest. (In ¶0128; Fig. 9 (1374): teaches that the “request will be posted to the requester's outgoing request queue 410 and recipient's incoming request queue 412”. See ¶0130 for an example wherein “User B may accept the request by also selecting to “goose” user A”.)
Lim discloses reaching a limit of matches in ¶0087 wherein “users can only request a limited number (e.g. 3) of contact requests (goose requests) at one time” which “minimizes date spamming and places a value on contact requests as a limited resource that encourages users to carefully evaluate (e.g. compatibility, availability, and/or rating) their contact requests”. Also, Lim generally teaches the profiles describing the second users, but with user interface elements such as “duck me” (see Fig. 5 and ¶0124; Lim). However, Lim does not explicitly teach the ability of displaying the second user profile, after reaching such limit of matches and specifically, without any user interface element related to unidirectional indication. Thus, Ding further teaches:
responsive to the first user having reached the limit of concurrent matches: display, for the first user, the profile describing the second user without displaying any user interface element for initiating transmission of a unidirectional indication of interest in the second user; (See Figs. 12A – 12C: teaches this negative limitation as the system interface can display the “secret crush list” that is saturated or completed (see Fig. 12A) wherein the user can click the second user’s photo icon to view their “Facebook profile” as shown in Fig. 12B (see ¶0043 for more details) which do not include any user interface element related to unidirectional indication as claimed.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lim to provide the ability of displaying the second user profile, after reaching such limit of matches and specifically, without any user interface element related to unidirectional indication, as taught by Ding in order to “prohibit the user 113 from simply identifying everyone in their list of friends and may constrain the user to choose only those persons in whom the user is truly interested” as well as “to maintain the privacy of the user's friends” (¶0037 – 38; Ding) through “concealed interactions” that are “encrypted, protected by gating credentials, or otherwise removed from the general public” (¶0016; Ding).
Regarding claims 21, 53, 85 and 108:
This independent claim set is represented by claim 85
Lim teaches:
in a first network-connected hardware processing device operated by a first user: an input device, configured to (In ¶0105; Fig. 1: teaches “a computer server 101 connected to a database 102 connected to the internet 103” wherein the user can connect and access “the server”: which is “programmed to allow communications in the social network to users actively using mobile devices in a common geographic location” (see ¶0147 – 148), based on examples given in ¶0031 from Applicant disclosure.)
receive input from the first user to invoke functionality to view profiles representing other users; (In ¶0133 – 134; Fig. 7 (1211 and 1212): teaches that upon receiving user input to search users filtered by entered criteria (see ¶0133) a list of profiles is returned, in “step 1211, the searching user selects to view the characteristic data, or “profile,” of another user who was in the list of users returned by the system” and “in step 1212, the system then displays the selected user's profile on the screen”.)
a processor, communicatively coupled to the input device, configured to determine whether the first user has reached a limit of concurrent matches, wherein each match represents a bidirectional connection between the first user and another user; (In ¶0139; Fig. 9 (1373); Fig. 10 (1401): teaches that the system does not allow a user to “have more than a set number of outgoing date requests 1373” (e.g. “an initiation of an interaction or communication with another member”) in “outgoing request queue 410” and this number can be set and modified by “administrator of the system” based on “the size of the user population” and in step 1401, “the system checks whether the number of pending requests is greater than three”, for example. Refer to ¶0087 also.)
an output device, communicatively coupled to the processor, configured to: responsive to the first user not having reached the limit of concurrent matches representing bidirectional connections: display, for the first user, profiles representing other users; and (In ¶0134; Fig. 7 (1212 – 1215); Fig. 9 (1373); Fig. 10 (1403): teaches that the system upon checking if the “does not have more than three pending requests and the user has sufficient tokens to pay for the communication then the system will allow the request” wherein the system “places the request in the user's outgoing date request queue 410” in step 1403 and as shown in Fig. 9 (see ¶0139). Thus, these requests include the display of a second user profile via the “the “view me” page 207 of the selected user” in step 1212 with whom the user initiated a “request to communicate with the selected user by pressing the selected user's “Goose me” button 509” in step 1215. The Examiner notes that the output device claimed is interpreted as a user interface, in accordance to the examples given in ¶0173 from Applicant disclosure.)
concurrently with displaying each profile, display a user interface element for initiating transmission of a unidirectional indication of interest in the user represented by the profile; and (In ¶0134; Fig. 7 (1215); Fig. 5 (509): teaches in “step 1215, the user initiates a request to communicate with the selected user by pressing the selected user's “Goose me” button 509” which is directed to the user interface element as shown in Fig. 5. Refer to ¶0126 and ¶0128 for more details.)
a network communication component, communicatively coupled to the processor, configured to, responsive to the input device receiving input from the first user activating the user interface element, (In ¶0128; Fig.1; Fig. 5 (509); Fig. 7 (1215); Fig. 9 (1373 and 1371): teaches that the user can press the “Goose me” button 509 which “will request a communication exchange with the user who is “goosed” (the person who owns the profile on which the “Goose me” button 509 was pressed)”. See ¶0130 for an example wherein “User A may initiate a “goose” request to User B” and ¶0147 for more details about these communications exchanged in a social network via the internet (see Fig. 1).)
transmit the unidirectional indication of interest to a second user; (In ¶0128; Fig. 9 (1374): teaches that the “request will be posted to the requester's outgoing request queue 410 and recipient's incoming request queue 412”. See ¶0130 for an example wherein “User B may accept the request by also selecting to “goose” user A”.)
Lim discloses reaching a limit of matches in ¶0087 wherein “users can only request a limited number (e.g. 3) of contact requests (goose requests) at one time” which “minimizes date spamming and places a value on contact requests as a limited resource that encourages users to carefully evaluate (e.g. compatibility, availability, and/or rating) their contact requests”. However, Lim does not explicitly teach the ability of declining display of other users profiles when reaching such limit of matches. Thus, Ding teaches:
wherein, responsive to the first user having reached the limit of concurrent matches representing bidirectional connections, the processor is further configured to decline to display profiles representing other users. (See Fig. 12A: shows that the user is informed that they need to remove someone to “make space for a new crush”. Thereby declining the request until the user removes someone (see ¶0043 for more details).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lim to provide the ability of declining display of other users profiles when reaching such limit of matches, as taught by Ding in order to “prohibit the user 113 from simply identifying everyone in their list of friends and may constrain the user to choose only those persons in whom the user is truly interested” as well as “to maintain the privacy of the user's friends” (¶0037 – 38; Ding) through “concealed interactions” that are “encrypted, protected by gating credentials, or otherwise removed from the general public” (¶0016; Ding).
Regarding claims 2, 34 and 66:
The combination of Lim and Ding, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 1, 33 and 65, respectively.
This dependent claim set is represented by claim 34
Lim further teaches:
further comprising instructions stored thereon, that when performed by the first network-connected hardware processing device, perform the steps of: causing an input device to receive input from the first user requesting that a unidirectional indication of interest in a second user be transmitted; and (In ¶0128; Fig.1; Fig. 5 (509); Fig. 7 (1215); Fig. 9 (1373 and 1371): teaches that the user can press the “Goose me” button 509 which “will request a communication exchange with the user who is “goosed” (the person who owns the profile on which the “Goose me” button 509 was pressed)”. See ¶0130 for an example wherein “User A may initiate a “goose” request to User B” and ¶0147 for more details about these communications exchanged in a social network via the internet (see Fig. 1).)
transmitting the unidirectional indication of interest. (In ¶0128; Fig. 9 (1374): teaches that the “request will be posted to the requester's outgoing request queue 410 and recipient's incoming request queue 412”. See ¶0130 for an example wherein “User B may accept the request by also selecting to “goose” user A”.)
Regarding claims 3, 12, 24, 35, 44, 56, 67, 76 and 88:
The combination of Lim and Ding, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 2, 11, 21, 34, 43, 53, 66, 75 and 85, respectively.
This dependent claim set is represented by claim 35
Lim further teaches:
receiving a signal from a second network-connected hardware processing device operated by the second user, the signal comprising a response to the transmitted unidirectional indication of interest; and (In ¶0130; Fig. 7 (1215 – 1220); Fig. 9 (1374): teaches an example for the system receiving second user signals wherein “User B may accept the request by also selecting to “goose” user A”.)
responsive to the response indicating that the second user has an interest in the first user, establishing a match representing a bidirectional connection between the first and second users. (In ¶0120; Fig. 7 (1220): teaches that “a communication exchange is established when a user requests to initiate communication with another user and the receiving user accepts the request”. Refer to ¶0134 wherein at step 1220, “if an actual communication exchange occurs between the two users then the viewing user will have the option to post a comment 520 to the profile page of the displayed user”.)
Regarding claims 4, 13, 25, 36, 45, 57, 68, 77 and 89:
Lim, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 3, 12, 24, 35, 44, 56, 67, 76 and 88, respectively.
Lim further teaches:
wherein establishing the match representing the bidirectional connection between the first and second users comprises initiating a communication channel between the first and second users. (In ¶0089: teaches that “users can't communicate (e.g. email, IM) with each other until a contact is established (goose request is accepted)”.)
Regarding claims 5, 14, 26, 37, 46, 58, 69, 78 and 90:
Lim, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 3, 12, 24, 35, 44, 56, 67, 76 and 88, respectively.
Lim further teaches:
establishing the match representing the bidirectional connection between the first and second users comprises incrementing a concurrent match counter for each of the first and second users; and (In ¶0120; Fig. 13 (1722): teaches that “both users are charged for each established communication exchange” and “each user will pay in advance for a number of tokens” that “when a user accepts an incoming request both users will be charged one token”.)
determining whether the first user has reached the limit of concurrent matches representing bidirectional connections comprises determining whether the concurrent match counter for the first user is equal to or greater than the limit of concurrent matches representing bidirectional connections. (In ¶0120; Fig. 13 (1721 and 1724): teaches that the system can determine when a limit or counter of concurrent matches have been reached which is directed to the scenario of “when token counter 431 reaches a zero balance the user cannot send or receive requests (other embodiments may allow requests to be sent but not actual communication until tokens are available)” and “when a user opts to send a token with a request to another user, two tokens are deducted from the requester's token counter 431 and none are deducted from the receiving user”.)
Regarding claims 6, 15, 27, 38, 47, 59, 70, 79 and 91:
Lim, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 5, 14, 26, 37, 46, 58, 69, 78 and 90, respectively.
This dependent claim set is represented by claim 6
Lim further teaches:
wherein establishing the match representing the bidirectional connection between the first and second users comprises: initiating a communication channel between the first and second users; (In ¶0089: teaches that “users can't communicate (e.g. email, IM) with each other until a contact is established (goose request is accepted)”.)
the method further comprising, responsive to receiving input from at least one of the first and second users to terminate the match: terminating the communication channel between the first and second users; and decrementing the concurrent match counter for each of the first and second users. (In ¶0121; Fig. 13 (1721 and 1724): teaches that “when a request is sent token counter 431 is debited one token and placed into token escrow 432” which “prevents a user from making more requests than the user has paid for” and “Token escrow 432 is not debited until the receiving user accepts the request” that “if the receiving user rejects the request then token counter 431 is re-credited”. Refer to ¶0158 wherein at steps 1721 and 1722, “a receiving user rejecting a request” and “the requester is not charged a token for the request and is not charged for an acceptance”.)
Regarding claims 7 and 39:
Lim, as shown in the rejection above, disclose