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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The following is a Non-Final Office Action in response to communication received on 7/16/2024. This is the first action on the merits. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on behalf of this case on 12/12/2024 has been considered by the Examiner.
Examiner’s note: there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the claim limitations of the claim (see claim objections, 112 second/b and 112 fourth/f rejections below) accordingly it is not proper to reject some of the claims on the basis of prior art even under the practice of compact prosecution (see In re Steele and MPEP 2173.06, cited herein below for Applicant’s reference):
MPEP 2713.06 Practice Compact Prosecution [R-07.2022](cited herein):
II. PRIOR ART REJECTION OF CLAIM REJECTED AS INDEFINITE
All words in a claim must be considered in judging the patentability of a claim against the prior art. In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 165 USPQ 494 (CCPA 1970). The fact that terms may be indefinite does not make the claim obvious over the prior art. When the terms of a claim are considered to be indefinite, at least two approaches to the examination of an indefinite claim relative to the prior art are possible.
First, where the degree of uncertainty is not great, and where the claim is subject to more than one interpretation and at least one interpretation would render the claim unpatentable over the prior art, an appropriate course of action would be for the examiner to enter two rejections: (A) a rejection based on indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph; and (B) a rejection over the prior art based on the interpretation of the claims which renders the prior art applicable. See, e.g., Ex parte Ionescu, 222 USPQ 537 (Bd. App. 1984). When making a rejection over prior art in these circumstances, it is important for the examiner to point out how the claim is being interpreted. Second, where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.
The first approach is recommended from an examination standpoint because it avoids piecemeal examination in the event that the examiner’s 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph rejection is not affirmed, and may give applicant a better appreciation for relevant prior art if the claims are redrafted to avoid the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph rejection.
Therefore claims 1-4, 78, 84-85, and 105-107 have been examined with respect to the prior art and other categories. Claims 79 and 108 have not as detailed in the rejection below.
Examiner notes that Applicant is invited to contact the Examiner at the Examiner’s office number to discuss the application and this current office action if Applicant would find an interview beneficial (see Conclusion section below for further details).
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s cancellation of claims 5-77, 80-83, and 86-104 before this first action on the merits is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 108 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim 108 not been further treated on the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4, 78-79, 84-85, and 105-108 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claims are rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
The claim(s) are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. The claim(s) must be in one sentence form only. Specifically, as to narrative in form and replete with indefinite language:
Regarding claim 1, 2, 78 the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
As per claim 1, Applicant recites an online social networking system operating together with user communication devices, personal computing devices connected in a network comprising. This limitation is unclear as there appears to be a word or words missing or out of order in the claim limitation. For the purposes of this examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim as follows: an online social networking system operating together with user communication devices or personal computing devices connected in a network comprising.
Further it is noted that claim 78 recites substantially the same subject matter and is rejected under the same grounds as discussed above.
As per claim 1, Applicant recites claim language of “for such suggested meetings”. This limitation recites references a previously suggested meeting however the claim does not previously recite a suggested meeting therefore it is unclear and indefinite as to what limitation this refers to (references back to).
Claim 2 contains the trademark/trade name FACEBOOK, LINKEDIN, XING, MEETUP, GOOGLEPLUS, FRIENDER, and INTERNATIONS. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a social network and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
As per claim 78, Applicant recites preferences with those of other users for which matches on the compared and sharable user data. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation, the compared and sharable user data, in the claim as the limitation of compared and sharable user data is not previously recited in the claim. For the purposes of this examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim as follows: preferences with those of other users for which matches on
As per claim 78, Applicant recites the limitation permissions and preferences, over time, and in the background to: There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation, the background, in the claim as the limitation of the background is not previously recited in the claim. For the purposes of this examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim as follows: permissions and preferences, over time, and ina background to:
Regarding claims 78 and 107, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
As per claim 78, Applicant uses the word “optionally” several times in the claim. Here this indefinite language makes it unclear as to where not the limitation is required to be performed. Limitations that are not required to be performed do not limit claim scope (see MPEP 2111.04)
As per claim 78, Applicant uses the word “typically” in the claim. Here this indefinite language makes it unclear as to where not the limitation is required to be performed. Limitations that are not required to be performed do not limit claim scope (see MPEP 2111.04)
As per claim 79, Applicant recites executing the method of claim 63. However claim 63 is a cancelled claim, therefore it is unclear and indefinite as to what limitation this claim refers back (to references).
As per claim 84, Applicant recites wherein the decision criteria is based on the maximum number of users available on a particular proposed meeting time and date. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation, the maximum number, in the claim as the limitation is not previously recited in the claim or the claim from which it depends. For the purposes of this examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim as follows: wherein the decision criteria is based on a maximum number of users available on a particular proposed meeting time and date.
As per claim 85, Applicant recites wherein the decision criteria is the will of a designated meeting host or moderator. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation, the will, in the claim as the limitation is not previously recited in the claim or the claim from which it depends. For the purposes of this examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim as follows: wherein the decision criteria is a will of a designated meeting host or moderator
As per claim 105, Applicant recites approving the registrant candidate, if he or she meets the general registration criteria. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation, the general registration criteria, in the claim as the limitation is not previously recited in the claim or the claim from which it depends. For the purposes of this examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim as follows: approving the registrant candidate, if he or she meets
As per claim 105, Applicant recites facilitating the creation of a community. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation, the creation of the community, in the claim as the limitation is not previously recited in the claim or the claim from which it depends. For the purposes of this examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim as follows: facilitating
As per claim 105, Applicant recites or allowing weighted time based on an evaluation of the quality of a match. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation, the quality of a match, in the claim as the limitation is not previously recited in the claim or the claim from which it depends. For the purposes of this examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim as follows: or allowing weighted time based on an evaluation ofa quality of a match.
As per claim 105, Applicant recites the limitation “equal time.” It is unclear as to what is meant by the term being in quotations and how this is different (or if it is different at all) than the term equal time not being in quotations.
As per claim 106, Applicant recites “assuming each wishes to chat at that time”, here this recites indefinite language, as its unclear whether or not limitation (e) has to be performed in the method as the claim language suggest or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed (see MPEP 2111.04).
As per claim 106, Applicant recites “the method of the above claim.” It is unclear as to whether Applicant is referring back to as claim 105 that recites a method, independent claims 1 or 78 that recite method steps, or claim 79 that additionally recites a method as well. Therefore It being unclear as to which limitation or claim this is referring to, it is therefore indefinite. Additionally see MPEP 608.01 for form of dependent claims.
As per claim 107, Applicant recites “the method of any of the above two claims.” It is unclear as to whether Applicant is referring back to claims 105 or 106 that recites a method, independent claims 1 or 78 that recite method steps, or claim 79 that additionally recites a method as well. Therefore it being unclear as to which limitation or claim this is referring to, it is therefore indefinite. Additionally see MPEP 608.01 for form of dependent claims.
As per claim 108, Applicant recites “the method of any of the above three claims.” It is unclear as to whether Applicant is referring back to as claims 105,106, or 107 that recites a method, independent claims 1 or 78 recite that method steps, or claim 79 that recite a method as well. This also refers back to a previous multiple dependent claim, therefore making it an improper dependent claim (see MPEP 608.01)(n). Therefore it being unclear as to which limitation or claim this is referring to, it is therefore indefinite. Additionally see MPEP 608.01 for form of dependent claims..
As per claim 108, Applicant recites where the wheel pointer will land. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation, the wheel pointer, in the claim as the limitation wheel pointer is not previously recited in the claim or the claim from which it depends. For the purposes of this examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim as follows: where a wheel pointer will land.
As per claim 108, Applicant recites see a prediction of the landing and then exclude or skip the contact. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitations, the contact and the landing, in the claim as the limitations contact and landing are not previously recited in the claim or the claim from which it depends. For the purposes of this examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim as follows: see a prediction of a landing and then exclude or skip a contact
Examiner’s note: It is noted above, it says claim 108 was no longer treated on merits (under claim objections), however the Examiner provided Applicant with these indefiniteness in the efforts of compact prosecution.
As per claim independent claims 1, 78, and 105, Applicant recites thereby clauses that suggest or make optional but do not require steps to be performed or to limit the claim structure. (see MPEP 2111.04). Therefore it being unclear as to whether these steps are performed the claims are indefinite.
Further claims 2-4 and 84-85 are rejected based on their dependency on claim 1.
Further claims 106-108 that depend off of claim 105 are rejected based on its dependency on claim 105.
9. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
10. Claims 79 and 108 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 79 depends from a cancelled claim 63, therefore fails to further limit the subject matter upon which it depends and fails to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
As per claim 108, Applicant recites “the method of any of the above three claims.” It is unclear as to whether Applicant is referring back to as claims 105,106, or 107 that recites a method, independent claims 1 or 78 that recite method steps, or claim 79 that additionally recites a method as well. This additionally refers back to a previous multiple dependent claim, therefore makes this an improper dependent claim (see MPEP 608.01)(n). Additionally see MPEP 608.01 for form of dependent claims.
It is noted above, claim 108 says it was no longer treated on merits (under claim objections), however the Examiner provided Applicant with this information in the efforts of compact prosecution.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
11. 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.
12. Claims 1-4, 78, 84-85 and 105-107 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-4 and 84-85 recite a machine as the claims recite a system with processors and servers. Claim 78 recite a machine as the claims recite a system with processors and servers. Claim 105-107 recites a process as the claims recite a method.
The claim(s) 1-4, 78, 84-85 and 105-107 recite(s) the idea of establishing a communication between users according to permissions and matching criteria for example like speed dating or round robin dating.
The claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity as the claims recite managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities.
Certain methods of organizing human activities are in the groupings of enumerated abstracts ideas, and hence the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims merely recite limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application in that the claims merely recite: (1) Adding the words “apply it” ( or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and (2) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Specifically as recited in the claims:
As per claim 1, the claims recite limitations a human or humans could perform specifically a human could register for a dating service, provide permissions, store information, perform selections from a menu, be matched based on characteristics and preferences, and then be provided suggested meeting details of the dating service based on criteria, then a human or humans could participate in a physical face to face meeting between recommended users, and human or humans could provide the users engaging in the speed dating or dating service with information of why they were matched and this could provide talking points of users talking to each other.
The additional elements that these human activities that could be performed by a human or humans are instead recited as being performed by a computer system (specifically devices, network, servers, software executed by a processor, database, engine), the meeting is “virtual”, the menu selection is a “drop down”, and information is stored in a “database” merely results in apply it. It is noted based on Applicant’s indefinite claim language above some of these limitations are not actually expressly required by the claim or the claims below however the Examiner has mapped to these in the efforts of compact prosecution. Specifically here the use of a computer or other machinery in its 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 after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Further here the claim only recites the idea of a solution in that the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. Here the claims recite a result oriented solution and lack details as to how the computer performs the modifications with is equivalent to the words apply it. Further Applicant does not recite in the claims improvements to the computer system (specifically devices, network, servers, software executed by a processor, database, engine), the virtual meeting environment, drop down menus, or databases, rather the claims as recited merely use these computer elements to perform the abstract idea at the apply it level.
Further limitations that could be performed by a human or humans that instead recite as being performed by a computer system (specifically devices, network, servers, software executed by a processor, database, engine), the meeting is “virtual”, the menu selection is a “drop down”, and information is stored in a “database” merely results in generally linking it to the field of computers.
As per claim 2, Applicant recites additional elements that merely describe the type or specific kind of social network used. A human could perform a dating service network as broadly recited in the claim by performing a speed dating meeting at a local pub or restaurant. The fact that this is instead being performed over the specific networks like FACEBOOK, LINKEDIN, XING, MEETUP, GOOGLEPLUS, FREINDER, INTERNATIONS merely results in apply it. Here the claim only recites the idea of a solution in that the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. Here the claims recite a result oriented solution and lack details as to how the computer performs the modifications with is equivalent to the words apply it. Here applicant merely discloses using a specific type of social network rather than an improvement thereto, which is “apply it” level or result based claiming.
Further limitations of merely disclosing using a specific type of social network rather than an improvement thereto result in generally linking it to the field of computers.
As per claim 3, Applicant recites a user communicating in an environment and being provided matching characteristic information of their matches in the speed dating or match making service which a human or humans could perform. The additional element that this is performed by a software running on a computer (“the user communication device is a personal computing device such as a smart phone on which a specialized application operates) merely results in apply it. Specifically here the use of a computer or other machinery in its 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 after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Further here the claim only recites the idea of a solution in that the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. Here the claims recite a result oriented solution and lack details as to how the computer performs the modifications with is equivalent to the words apply it. Here Applicant merely recites using software running on a computer to perform the method, rather than for example an improvement to the computer, which is equivalent to the words apply it.
Further limitations that could be performed by a human or humans that instead recite as being performed by software running on a computer (“the user communication device is a personal computing device such as a smart phone on which a specialized application operates) merely results in generally linking it to the field of computers.
As per claim 4, Applicant recite limitations a human or human moderating the event could perform, specifically of matching users based on a geographic area. The additional element that is performed by decision selection means merely results in apply it. Specifically here the use of a computer or other machinery in its 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 after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Further here the claim only recites the idea of a solution in that the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. Here the claims recite a result oriented solution and lack details as to how the computer performs the modifications with is equivalent to the words apply it. Here Applicant merely recites using software running on a computer to perform the method, rather than for example an improvement to the computer, which is equivalent to the words apply it.
Further limitations that could be performed by a human or humans that instead recite as being performed by a computer (decision selection means) merely results in generally linking it to the field of computers.
As per claim 78, the claims recite limitations a human or humans could perform specifically a human could register for a dating service, provide permissions, store information, perform selections from a menu, be matched based on characteristics and preferences, be ranked or indexed based on characteristics, be sorted into a groups or sub communities, then a human or humans could participate in a physical face to face meeting between recommended users, and a human or humans could provide the users engaging in the speed dating or dating service with information of why they were matched and this could provide talking points of users talking to each other, as well as a user could provide rankings of the match or meeting.
The additional elements that these human activities that could be performed by a human or humans are instead recited as being performed by a computer system (specifically devices, network, servers, software executed by a processor, database, engine), the menu selection is a “drop down”, and information is stored in a “database” merely results in apply it. Specifically here the use of a computer or other machinery in its 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 after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Further here the claim only recites the idea of a solution in that the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. Here the claims recite a result oriented solution and lack details as to how the computer performs the modifications with is equivalent to the words apply it. Further Applicant does not recite in the claims improvements to the computer system (specifically devices, network, servers, software executed by a processor, database, engine), drop down menus, or databases, rather the claims as recited merely use these computer elements to perform the abstract idea at the apply it level.
Further limitations that could be performed by a human or humans that instead recite as being performed by a computer system (specifically devices, network, servers, software executed by a processor, database, engine), the menu selection is a “drop down”, and information is stored in a “database” merely results in generally linking it to the field of computers.
As per claim 84, Applicant recites determining meeting criteria based on the maximum number of people available to meet at a proposed meeting date or time. All of which are limitations a human could perform. There are no additional elements in the claims beyond those discussed above.
As per claim 85, Applicant recites determining meeting criteria based on the will of the designated meeting host or moderator. All of which are limitations a human could perform. There are no additional elements in the claims beyond those discussed above.
As per claim 105, the claims recite limitations a human or humans could perform specifically a human could register for a dating service, be approved based on general registration criteria, participate or set up a meeting or gathering based on criteria, publish the meeting get together for example on a bulletin board or in a public space, provide information for who is at the meeting, open at meeting or session when there are at least two people who are assumed they want to chat as they are there, and as more people arrive splitting up the time evenly or weighted based on quality of a match (e.g. who is most important).
The additional elements that these human activities that could be performed by a human or humans are instead recited as being performed by logged in users merely results in apply it. Specifically here the use of a computer or other machinery in its 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 after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Further here the claim only recites the idea of a solution in that the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. Here the claims recite a result oriented solution and lack details as to how the computer performs the modifications with is equivalent to the words apply it. Here Applicant does not recite an improvement to logged in users rather Applicant as recited is merely using logged in users to perform the method at the apply it level.
Further limitations that could be performed by a human or humans that instead recite as being performed logged in users merely results in generally linking it to the field of computers.
As per claim 106 the claims recite allowing a user to exclude a rematch with a user already matched. These are limitations a human could perform. The additional element that this is done by a computer (means for) merely result in apply it or linking it to the field of computers as discussed above.
As per claim 107 the claims recite allowing a user to buy a premium to chat and rechat with a user. These are limitations a human could perform. There are no additional elements beyond those previously discussed.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims merely recite limitations that are not indicative of an inventive concept (“significantly more”) in that the claims merely recite:
(1) Adding the words “apply it” ( or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). And (2) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), as detailed above with respect to the practical application step.
Claim Interpretation
13. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
14. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
15. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
-(a) to have a recommendation contact engine compare and share their user data such as user characteristics and preferences with those of other users for which matches on the compared and sharable user data are determined, (see claim 1)
- and(b) based on matching criteria, to be contacted via the recommendation contact engine, wherein the system is adapted to contact users identified by the recommendation contact engine as having common interests and invite such users to a meeting, the system further adapted to propose times and/or locations for such suggested meetings, and to register user- indicated-suitable-dates for such meeting based on decision criteria, and wherein, once an engagement such as a virtual or physical face to face meeting between two recommended users is commenced, the system is adapted to provide engaging users with a user communication device such as a display adapted to indicate to the users what the matching user characteristics are, thereby facilitating identification of common interests between users during an engagement between users. (see claim 1)
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
From review of the specification the following appears to be the corresponding structure for performing the claimed function in the specification
The controller 512 further includes an interface 1202 such as a touch screen, a keyboard of input buttons, facilitating the activation of the controller and the selection of the operation mode of the controller. Circuitry (not shown) conducts the flow of electricity to a motor to activate the same or to change polarity to reverse the same. In addition, the circuitry controls the acceleration of the device, such that the movement is smooth and almost unnoticeable (see page 16 of the specification as filed).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. Claim(s) 105-107 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Janssens (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2014/0040368).
As per claim 105 Janssens teaches A method of online networking executes the following steps: (see paragraph 0004, Examiner’s note: method to find people or items of interest)
(a) registrating a user interested in chatting with each users including: (see paragraph 0051, Examiner’s note: providing new users).
i. inputting information about a registrant candidate and what he or she is seeking in terms of chat partners, professional service providers, mates, or friends; (see paragraphs 0032 and 0070, Examiner’s note: permissions and a user indicating things like location, gender, and education preferences).
ii. approving the registrant candidate, if he or she meets the general registration criteria; (see paragraph 0051, Examiner’s note: approving the new user if they meet the requirements).
(b) once approved, the registrant creates a chat theme, inputting what criteria is required of participants, thereby creating a themed chat space or chat room, or participates in an existing chat space if he or she meets the chat space creator's criteria; (c) publishing the chat space for those of common interest, facilitating the creation of a community; (see paragraph 0055-0056, 0061, 0118, Examiner’s note: providing preferences and being able to chat with people based on those preferences).
(d) displaying information about who is logged on at a given time; (see paragraph 0061, 0162, 0164-0165, Examiner’s note: displaying information on who is logged in).
(e) as soon as at least two are logged on, a chat session is opened for a time period, assuming each wishes to chat at that time; (see paragraph 0062,0095, 0160, 0162, 0164-0165, Examiner’s note: user logs in and can make selections).
and(f) as more users log on wishing to join the chat, the time period allocated for each chat is correspondingly reduced, allowing "equal time" to chat between all participants or allowing weighted time based on an evaluation of the quality of a match (see paragraph 0078, 0117-0118, 0159, 0191-0192, Examiner’s note: reducing or ranking chats based on quality of membership or other preferences).
As per claim 108, Janssens teaches,
Wherein users are provided with means for excluding a re-match with a user already matched (see paragraph 0086-0087, 0090, 0093, 0052, and 0154 Examiner’s note: disinterest in a user, to avoid seeing again or like to see again).
As per claim 107 Janssens teaches,
Wherein a user may indicate, for example, by paying a premium, an interest in chatting and rechatting with a particular chat user (see paragraph 0032, 0133, 0181, 0185, Examiner’s note: premiums to provide functionality to users).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s)1-4, 78 and 84-85 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janssens (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2014/0040368) further in view of Ribaudo et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2007/0030824).
Examiner notes: the Examiner has applied a prior art rejection as best understood by the Examiner in view of the 112 second/b rejections as discussed above.
As per claim 1, Janssens teaches An online social networking system operating together with user communication devices, personal computing devices connected in a network comprising (see paragraphs 0028-0029, Examiner’s note: computer system communicating with computers)
a server or servers hosting dedicated control software of which method steps are executed by a processor so as to access a database of user profile data of users to operate the said social networking system, the system, during a registration step, providing the users an opt-in, permission and/or preferences selection device such as a menu, enabling users to provide permission (see paragraph 0030-0032,0034-0037, and 0145, Examiner’s note: profile information of the user. It is noted that “such as” makes the limitation indefinite specifically it is unclear as to whether or not it is required by the claim. Method is performed by computers. Further teaches database of profiles).
(a) to have a recommendation contact engine (see paragraphs 0040, Examiner’s note: modules to perform the various processes and operations of the speed dating system).
compare and share their user data such as user characteristics and preferences with those of other users for which matches on the compared and sharable user data are determined, and(b) based on matching criteria, to be contacted via the recommendation contact engine, wherein the system is adapted to contact users identified by the recommendation contact engine as having common interests and invite such users to a meeting, (see paragraph 0053, 0055-0056, Examiner’s note: initiate chat based on preferences).
the system further adapted to propose times and/or locations for such suggested meetings, and to register user- indicated-suitable-dates for such meeting based on decision criteria, (see paragraph 0067, Examiner’s note: chats based on criteria at certain times).
and wherein, once an engagement such as a virtual or physical face to face meeting between two recommended users is commenced, the system is adapted to provide engaging users with a user communication device such as a display adapted to indicate to the users what the matching user characteristics are, thereby facilitating identification of common interests between users during an engagement between users (see paragraphs 0054-0056, Examiner’s note: chats based on user preferences).
Janseens does not expressly teach preferences via a drop-down menu.
However, Ribaudo et al. which is in the art connecting users for speed dating (see paragraphs 0160 and 0162) teaches preferences via a drop-down menu (see paragraphs 0027 and 0099, Examiner’s note: drop down menus for preferences).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Janseens with the aforementioned teachings from Ribaudo et al. with the motivation of using a commonly known computer interface selection feature to make a selection (see Ribaudo et al. paragraphs 0027 and 0099), when making selections for preferences on an interface is known (See Janseens paragraph 0070 and 0032).
As per claim 2, Janssens teaches
selected from one of a group of social networks consisting of FACEBOOK®, "LINKEDIN"® or "XING"TM, "MEETUP"TM and "GOOGLEPLUS"®, "FREINDER", "INTERNATIONS", and dating service networks. (see paragraph 0057, 0119, Examiner’s note: speed dating or FACEBOOK, note only is required by the claims).
As per claim 3, Janssens teaches
wherein the user communication device is a personal computing device such as a smart phone on which a specialized application operates to display matching characteristics (see paragraph 0028, 0030, and 0217, Examiner’s note: mobile phone application).
As per claim 4, Janssens teaches
wherein decision selection means is provided to users to limit the users with whom a user can be matched based on the system's knowledge of their location and their physical proximity to a searching user, enabling the searching user to organize and participate in a networking event during which the user can meet those persons in their geographical area (see paragraph 0055, Examiner’s note: results based on geographic location).
As per claim 78, Janseens teaches A community-making engine operating together with user communication devices, personal computing devices connected in a network comprising (see paragraphs 0028-0029, Examiner’s note: computer system communicating with computers)
a server or servers hosting dedicated control software of which method steps are executed by a processor so as to access a database of user profile data of users to operate a social networking system, the system, during a registration step, providing the users an opt-in, permission and/or preferences selection device such as a menu, enabling users to provide permission to be contacted and to share their user data such as user characteristics and preferences with those of other users for which matches on the compared and sharable user data are determined, wherein the community-making engine operates on the database of user profiles, permissions and preferences, over time and in the background to: (see paragraph 0030-0032,0034-0037, and 0145, Examiner’s note: profile information of the user. It is noted that “such as” makes the limitation indefinite specifically it is unclear as to whether or not it is required by the claim. Method is performed by computers. Further teaches database of profiles).
a) compare user profiles by comparing profile inputs for which comparison permission has been granted such as age, sex, city of residence, hobbies, etc. and/or user input characteristics of types of users sought for connection(see paragraph 0053, 0055-0056, Examiner’s note: initiate chat based on preferences).
;b) index based on most frequent, useful match criteria found in the comparison by assigning an index number or most frequent match identifier classification (hereinafter "code") to each matching criteria, such as, for example, age range, race, education level, profession, etc., which are typically gathered at registration of the user, thereby c