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
Office Action is in response to the Applicant's amendments and remarks filed9/30/2025. Claims 1, 6 and 9-10 were amended. Claim 2-5 and 7-8 were cancelled. Claims 1, 6 and 9-10 are presently pending and presented for examination.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
In regards to Claim Objection: Applicant’s arguments, filed 9/30/2025, with respect to claims 1, 6 and 9-10 have been fully considered and objection has been withdrawn.
In regards to rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112f/a/b: Applicant’s arguments, filed 9/30/2025, with respect to claims 1, 6 and 9-10 have been fully considered and 35 U.S.C. § 112f/a/b rejection has been withdrawn.
In regards to rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101: Applicant’s arguments, filed 9/30/2025, with respect to claims 1, 6 and 9-10 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
In regards to Applicant’s arguments that “Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Examiner characterizes the invention as being directed merely to "a method of organizing human activity," but such a characterization overlooks the specific technical features and technological improvements recited in the claims and described in the specification. Claim 1, as amended, recites not only the organization of user interactions but also the integration of multiple technological components that operate in a coordinated manner to address issues of trust, security, authentication, and user engagement in a digital environment. For example, the claims require a custom backend server and user management system that implement blockchain verification for registration and authentication, thereby solving a known problem in social networking platforms, fake or unverified users, using a specific and concrete technical solution. This is not a mere instruction to "apply it on a computer," but rather a practical application of distributed ledger technology to ensure verified participation. Further, the claims recite modules that go beyond generic computer implementation by providing integrated and non-conventional technical features. The training module links partner scheduling directly with integrated calendar and communication tools, enabling real- time alignment of availability across disparate devices and communication channels. The pass module provides secure, remote issuance and validation of gym or event passes, reducing reliance on on-site transactions and extending access control through digital infrastructure. The dating module leverages blockchain-based verification and AI-driven matchmaking, which together provide a technological improvement over existing systems that rely only on user- entered preferences. The forum and session modules integrate content delivery with interactive features such as live Q&A and expert engagement, thereby enhancing user experience through a technical implementation that improves the functioning of the platform itself. These combined features represent more than organizing human activity-they reflect specific, computer-implemented technological improvements addressing issues of trust, scheduling, authentication, and digital engagement. When viewed as an ordered combination, the recited features clearly integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application. The claims do not merely recite generic computer functions but require specific improvements to computer and network technology that yield concrete benefits for security, trust, scalability, and user interactivity. As such, the claims satisfy Step 2A, Prong 2 of the eligibility analysis by integrating any abstract idea into a meaningful practical application. Even under Step 2B, the claims recite significantly more than the identified judicial exception. The use of blockchain verification for user authentication, AI-driven automated matchmaking with calendar integration, and remote issuance of digital passes represent inventive concepts not well-understood, routine, or conventional in the field. These elements, individually and in combination, impose meaningful limits on practicing the alleged abstract idea and amount to significantly more than simply linking an idea to a computer environment”, (see remarks, pg. 8-9).
Examiner respectfully disagrees, the current claims are not statutory because they are directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite method for social networking engagement for plurality of users, which is a method of managing interactions between people, which falls into the methods of organizing human activity grouping, as two individuals along with a database can interact with one another to determine scheduling and filtering others’ schedules to fit a certain objective/task for a particular user. The computing elements such as “platform, processor, mobile readable instructions, modules, computer readable instructions, memory, user device, server, data processing, management system, blockchain, artificial intelligence, videos, integrated messaging, interface, integrated calls, calls, video, virtual, AI-Driven, social media feed of claim 1; mobile application, device, user management tool, calls, messages, video chats, social media feed of claim 10” are recited at a high level of generality and are generically recited computer elements. The generically recited computer elements amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The combination of these additional elements are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, elements being analyzed for significantly more are mere generic computer components being implemented to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Response to Prior Art Arguments
Applicant's prior art arguments filed 9/30/2025 have been fully considered and 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection has been withdrawn.
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, 6 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites method for social networking engagement for plurality of users.
Step 2A – Prong 1
Independent Claims 1 and 10 as a whole recite a method of organizing human activity. The limitations from exemplary Claim 1 reciting “a custom user (210) interacts with the (206) for registration and authentication of one or more users through to ensure verified participation; a supplier (110) enabling staff, entrepreneurs, and community providers to upload schedules, classes, timetables, and respond to member issues via ; a training (212) executed by the for identifying or search training partners based on criteria including date, time, location, gender, age, level, reviews and goals for scheduling or in-person sessions, and enabling communication through , , or directly linked to users' calendars; a pass (220), executed by the of the , that allows the user to purchase a gym or event pass without needing to visit the gym or venue and access a community and arrange a health or training or event sessions with members, and non- members or new users of the platform; a dating or social interaction (214), executed by the of the , for providing safe dating through or feedback-verified members, including tailored questions and automated activity- based date scheduling, with personal calendar integration and matchmaking; a forum (216), executed by the of the , for accessing wellness-related content creating wellbeing boards, following and messaging experts, and leaving reviews or feedback after sessions; and a session (218), executed by the of the , providing access to live and pre-recorded wellness or expert s and booking sessions with experts, partners and other members of the platform, with interactive features, including the ability to ask questions on live feeds; and a with customizable filters allowing users to upload and engage with community content such as exercises, recipes, and playlists” is a method of managing interactions between people, which falls into the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. The mere recitation of a generic computer (platform, processor, mobile readable instructions, modules, computer readable instructions, memory, user device, server, data processing, management system, blockchain, artificial intelligence, videos, integrated messaging, interface, integrated calls, calls, video, virtual, AI-Driven, social media feed of claim 1; mobile application, device, user management tool, calls, messages, video chats, social media feed of claim 10) does not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Claims 1 and 3-20 and their underlining limitations, steps, features and terms, are further inspected by the Examiner under the current examining guidelines, and found, both individually and as a whole, not to include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The limitations are directed to limitations referenced in MPEP 2106.05 that are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Limitations that are not enough include, as a non-limiting or non-exclusive examples, such as: (i) adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions, (ii) insignificant extra solution activity, and/or (iii) generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim recites the additional elements of (platform, processor, mobile readable instructions, modules, computer readable instructions, memory, user device, server, data processing, management system, blockchain, artificial intelligence, videos, integrated messaging, interface, integrated calls, calls, video, virtual, AI-Driven, social media feed of claim 1; mobile application, device, user management tool, calls, messages, video chats, social media feed of claim 10). The platform, processor, mobile readable instructions, modules, computer readable instructions, memory, user device, server, data processing, management system, blockchain, artificial intelligence, videos, integrated messaging, interface, integrated calls, calls, video, virtual, AI-Driven, social media feed of claim 1; mobile application, device, user management tool, calls, messages, video chats, social media feed of claim 10, are recited at a high level of generality and are generically recited computer elements. The generically recited computer elements amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The combination of these additional elements are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are ineligible.
Dependent claims 6 and 9 are also directed to same grouping of methods of organizing human activity. The additional elements of the Claim 6 provides community connectivity platform, module; claim 9 provides community connectivity platform, module, processor, user device, are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Novel/Non-Obvious Subject Matter
Examiner has determined that All applicant’s Claims have overcome having prior art rejections. The reason for this is that Examiner does not believe that, at the time of Applicant’s priority date, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine prior art disclosures to result in the particular combination of elements/limitations in that claim, including the particular configuration of the elements/limitations with respect to each other in the particular combination, without the use of impermissible hindsight.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IBRAHIM EL-BATHY whose telephone number is (571)272-7545. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 7pm.
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, Resha Desai can be reached at 571-270-7792. 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.
/IBRAHIM N EL-BATHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628