DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
The following is a non-final Office Action in response to claims filed 13 May 2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application(s) 63/466,764 under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 7 is 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 7 only further limits a single option from a Markush group from which it depends and thus does not further limit. 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
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 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims are directed to a process (an act, or series of acts or steps), a machine (a concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices), and a manufacture (an article produced from raw or prepared materials by giving these materials new forms, qualities, properties, or combinations, whether by hand labor or by machinery). Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (Step 1). However, the claim(s) recite(s) creating an event group and notice thereof for qualified members and selecting group members for the group event which is an abstract idea of organizing human activities.
The limitations of “creating an event group with the event group parameters; identifying qualified users from the plurality of user profiles received, the qualified users having user profiles satisfying the event group parameters; creating an event group notice seeking members to join the event group to attend the event together; publishing the event group notice in an event group list accessible to the qualified users selecting group members for the event group from the qualified users who submitted group membership requests,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a organizing human activities--fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) but for the recitation of generic computer components (Step 2A Prong 1). That is, other than reciting “A computer-implemented method,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from the methods of organizing human interactions grouping. For example, but for the “by a computer system” language, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually mapping, computing centroids, distances and comparing to the threshold which is a managing personal behavior. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, while some of the limitations may be based on mathematical concepts, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (Step 2A Prong Two). The “receiving” steps are simply insignificant extrasolution data gathering activities. Next, the claim only recites one additional element – using a computer-implemented method to perform the steps. The computer-implemented method in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of electronic data storage, query and retrieval) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Specifically the claims amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or invoking computers as tools by 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 2106.04(d)(I) discussing MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the combination of these additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea, even when considered as a whole (Step 2A Prong Two: NO).
The claim does not include a combination of additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A Prong 2), the combination of additional elements of using a computer-implemented method to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Reevaluating here in step 2B, the “receiving” step(s) which are insignificant extrasolution activities are also determined to be well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the field. The Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs court decisions in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that the mere receipt or transmission of data over a network is well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as is here). Therefore, when considering the additional elements alone, and in combination, there is no inventive concept in the claim. As such, the claim(s) is/are not patent eligible, even when considered as a whole (Step 2B: NO).
Claims 2, 4, 5, 9-10, and 20 are dependent on claim 1 and include all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claims 2, 4, 5, 9-10, and 20 recite the same abstract idea of “creating an event group and notice thereof for qualified members and selecting group members for the group event.” The claim(s) recite(s) the additional limitation(s) further including a similarity score based upon user traits, which is still directed towards the abstract idea previously identified and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Again, as discussed with respect to claim 1, the claims are simply limitations which are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer or with computing components. Accordingly, the additional element(s) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Even when considered as a whole, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Claims 3, 6-8, and 11-19 are dependent on claim 1 and include all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claims 3, 6-8, and 11-19 recite the same abstract idea of “creating an event group and notice thereof for qualified members and selecting group members for the group event.” The claim(s) recite(s) the additional limitation(s) that only further limit the data and how the data is used, which is still directed towards the abstract idea previously identified and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Again, as discussed with respect to claim 1, the claims are simply limitations which are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer or with computing components. Accordingly, the additional element(s) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Even when considered as a whole, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Claims 1-20 are therefore not eligible subject matter, even when considered as a whole.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 6-8, 11, and 13-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cohen (US PG Pub. 2020/0167699).
As per claim 1, Cohen discloses computer-implemented method for matching users to attend events together, comprising (method, Cohen ¶17; computing device, platform, ¶115):
receiving a plurality of user profiles, each user profile comprising traits of a respective user (computer is operable to store a plurality of user profiles, Cohen ¶16; The Platform is operable to receive information from a user via the Internet or other network, register the user with the system, and construct a user account and user profile, wherein the user profile is stored in the Platform database. The profile is digitally constructed to store information that describes the user and allows for matching between other user profiles. A web-based GUI prompts a user to input personal information, including name, date of birth, email address, location, music interests, event interests, academic institutions, occupation, and/or other group memberships. The Platform is further operable to store pictures, videos, audio clips, or other non-textual information with a profile for displaying on social pages of the Platform. Upon registration, the Platform is operable to automatically suggest upcoming events related to information contained in the user profile. The recommendation is based on at least one factor, for example an analysis of distance of the event location from a user location, an indicated fandom level, a number of friends or connected users that are attending an event, or a membership to a group that is hosting an event, ¶58);
receiving an event profile comprising details of an event (events, price, location, Cohen ¶58-¶61; descriptions and requirements for an event, ¶67);
receiving a request to create an event group for the event from a first user (event is created, by event creator, Cohen ¶67);
receiving event group parameters specified by the first user, the event group parameters including gender and age requirements for participation in the event group (For example, in one embodiment, the Platform only sends a notification when the event details match an allowed notification requirement stored in a matched user profile, such as a specific user gender, user age, user occupation, user group membership, user name or profile, event date, or event type, Cohen ¶67);
creating an event group with the event group parameters (wherein the at least one server computer is operable to provide to the plurality of devices an indication of upcoming live events; wherein the at least one server computer is operable to establish a group communication connection between a subset of the plurality of user profiles via the internet messaging platform; wherein the internet messaging platform is operable to assign an event to the group communication connection, ¶16);
identifying qualified users from the plurality of user profiles received, the qualified users having user profiles satisfying the event group parameters (smart matching of user profiles, Cohen ¶15; matching of user profiles to events and services as well as matching of user profiles to other user profiles, ¶56; see also ¶67) (Examiner notes the description and requirements of the events used to match with user profile elements as the identification of qualified users);
creating an event group notice seeking members to join the event group to attend the event together (The Platform is further operable to provide an automatic event matching and notification system, wherein a service is operable to monitor a listing of events and identify descriptions and requirements for an event that match elements of a user profile. For example, if an event is created that requires attendees to be a student of NEW YORK UNIVERSITY (NYU) who is studying business, the Platform is operable to identify the event requirements and send a notification to any user profile connected to the event creator that includes an indication of being a student at NYU studying business. A filtering mechanism is operable to monitor an allowed notification requirement attached to user accounts. For example, in one embodiment, the Platform only sends a notification when the event details match an allowed notification requirement stored in a matched user profile, such as a specific user gender, user age, user occupation, user group membership, user name or profile, event date, or event type, Cohen ¶67);
publishing the event group notice in an event group list accessible to the qualified users (send a notification, Cohen ¶67; public view of the events, ¶59);
receiving event group membership requests from the qualified users interested in joining the event group (In a further embodiment, the Platform is operable to match multiple event participants and add each user to a “Smart Chat.” The Platform is operable to match at least two users based on desired match criteria and corresponding personal user profile data. For example, if the Platform receives a request from at least one user account to attend an event with three members who attend NEW YORK UNIVERSITY, the Platform is operable to construct an attendance group within the event and allow only those who have NEW YORK UNIVERSITY listed in their profiles to join. In this embodiment, the Platform is operable to send a message, post, invitation, or other communication to other user accounts that have purchased tickets to the event or include an indication of interested in attending the event with the group membership requirements. Once a qualifying user joins the group, the user account is entered into a Smart Chat with the group initiating user and other users who have joined the group, Cohen ¶69); and
selecting group members for the event group from the qualified users who submitted group membership requests (In a further embodiment, the Platform is operable to match multiple event participants and add each user to a “Smart Chat.” The Platform is operable to match at least two users based on desired match criteria and corresponding personal user profile data. For example, if the Platform receives a request from at least one user account to attend an event with three members who attend NEW YORK UNIVERSITY, the Platform is operable to construct an attendance group within the event and allow only those who have NEW YORK UNIVERSITY listed in their profiles to join. In this embodiment, the Platform is operable to send a message, post, invitation, or other communication to other user accounts that have purchased tickets to the event or include an indication of interested in attending the event with the group membership requirements. Once a qualifying user joins the group, the user account is entered into a Smart Chat with the group initiating user and other users who have joined the group, Cohen ¶69).
As per claim 6, Cohen discloses as shown above with respect to claim 1. Cohen further discloses wherein the event profile includes whether the event is a public event or a private event (public or private event, Cohen ¶109).
As per claim 7, Cohen discloses as shown above with respect to claim 6. Cohen further discloses wherein, when the event is a public event: the event group defines an initial event group; and the method further comprises creating additional event groups (create smart chats, Cohen ¶75).
In addition, the Examiner asserts that claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure. However, examples of claim language, although not exhaustive, that may raise a question as to the limiting effect of the language in a claim are: (A) "adapted to" or "adapted for" clauses; (B) "wherein" clauses; and (C) "whereby" clauses (See MPEP 2111.04). In the instant case, the recited “wherein, when the event is a public event: the event group defines an initial event group; and the method further comprises creating additional event groups " is not a positive method step as it do not require any actual positive recited claim steps to be performed; nor does it modify any of the positively claimed method steps.
As per claim 8, Cohen discloses as shown above with respect to claim 7. Cohen further discloses selecting additional group members for each of the additional event groups from the qualified users who submitted group membership requests (send invites, Cohen ¶88; add or remove users, kick users out, ¶90).
As per claim 11, Cohen discloses as shown above with respect to claim 1. Cohen further discloses wherein the event group parameters include whether qualified users are allowed to invite friends to join the event group (invite or add additional users, Cohen ¶88 and ¶145).
As per claim 13, Cohen discloses as shown above with respect to claim 1. Cohen further discloses wherein selecting group members for the event group includes disqualifying the qualified user from the event group if the friend does not satisfy the event group parameters (he Platform is further operable to provide an automatic event matching and notification system, wherein a service is operable to monitor a listing of events and identify descriptions and requirements for an event that match elements of a user profile. For example, if an event is created that requires attendees to be a student of NEW YORK UNIVERSITY (NYU) who is studying business, the Platform is operable to identify the event requirements and send a notification to any user profile connected to the event creator that includes an indication of being a student at NYU studying business. A filtering mechanism is operable to monitor an allowed notification requirement attached to user accounts. For example, in one embodiment, the Platform only sends a notification when the event details match an allowed notification requirement stored in a matched user profile, such as a specific user gender, user age, user occupation, user group membership, user name or profile, event date, or event type, Cohen ¶67) (Examiner notes the filtering out of users as the disqualifying).
As per claim 14, Cohen discloses as shown above with respect to claim 1. Cohen further discloses wherein the event group parameters include a group capacity parameter defining a minimum and a maximum number of group members allowed for the event group (minimum or maximum number of users, Cohen ¶76).
As per claim 15, Cohen discloses as shown above with respect to claim 14. Cohen further discloses deleting the event group if the number of event group membership requests received is less than the minimum number of group members allowed as defined in the group capacity parameter (deadline timers, countdowns, disband group, ¶82) (Examiner interprets the ability to disband a group or chat according to a deadline and minimum number as the as the ability to delete the group should the capacity not be met).
As per claim 16, Cohen discloses as shown above with respect to claim 14. Cohen further discloses prompting the first user to modify the event group parameters if the number of event group membership requests received is less than the minimum number of group members allowed as defined in the group capacity parameter (In one embodiment, Smart Chats include a minimum and maximum number of user accounts as well as an indication of allowable solo checkout features. The Platform is operable to accept and set limits based on an input from an event creator account in order to facilitate group attendance to an event and deter resale of tickets, Cohen ¶76).
As per claim 17, Cohen discloses as shown above with respect to claim 1. Cohen further discloses selectively providing group members with means to communicate with each other (create smart chats, Cohen ¶75).
As per claim 18, Cohen discloses as shown above with respect to claim 17. Cohen further discloses wherein group members are selectively provided with means to communicate with each only after the event group is activated (create smart chats, Cohen ¶75).
As per claim 19, Cohen discloses as shown above with respect to claim 14. Cohen further discloses further comprising: receiving a request from a first qualified user to send a second qualified user a request to join the event group together; and sending the second qualified user the invitation from the first qualified user to join the event group together (invite or add additional users, Cohen ¶88 and ¶145).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2-5, 9-10, 12, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen (US PG Pub. 2020/0167699) and further in view of Lento et al. (US PG Pub. 2011/0246574).
As per claim 2, Cohen discloses as shown above with respect to claim 1. Cohen does not expressly disclose wherein selecting group members for the event group includes: determining a similarity score for each qualified user relative to the first user based on the traits included in the user profiles of the qualified users and the first user, the similarity score representing the extent to which the qualified users and the first user share common traits; selecting qualified users with the highest similarity scores to be group members for the event group.
However, Lento teaches wherein selecting group members for the event group includes: determining a similarity score for each qualified user relative to the first user based on the traits included in the user profiles of the qualified users and the first user, the similarity score representing the extent to which the qualified users and the first user share common traits; selecting qualified users with the highest similarity scores to be group members for the event group (the determined common characteristic may be defined to select a subset of the shared characteristics. The selection of the subset may be based on weights, configured by administrators of the social networking system, on certain complex characteristics that have been identified as being correlated to the user's interests. Predetermined weights for certain characteristics may indicate degrees of relevance to the user based on the user's interactions with objects on the social networking system. For example, user profile information may include affinity scores for other users and/or objects or other things, entities, interests, concepts, or other objects in the social networking system. A user may have a high affinity score for football. If one of the shared characteristics of the selected connections were football, this characteristic may outweigh the other matching characteristics. Thus, shared characteristics may be ranked based on these weights, such as an affinity score, configured by administrators of the social networking system, Lento ¶35; As a result, the social networking system can provide more relevant suggestions of connections to add to a new group as more groups are created by the user while also maximizing computational efficiency, ¶36; for groups, threshold, ¶38; A score may be used to evaluate connections that have not already been added to the new group. In one embodiment, the score may rely solely on the value of the positive predictor for each connection. In another embodiment, the score may rely on both the positive predictor and strong negative predictors, as discussed above. A potential suggested connection may be evaluated using a score that evaluates whether the potential suggested connection is an outlier from the positive and negative predictors. An outlier is a value that is numerically distinct from the rest of the data. A value that is within one standard deviation, for example, is not an outlier, ¶44).
Both the Lento and the Cohen references are analogous in that both are directed towards/concerned with social networking. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use Lento’s ability to provide and utilize an affinity score in Cohen’s system to improve the system and method with reasonable expectation that this would result in a social networking system that is able to improve how users are matched with other users with similar interests.
The motivation being that social networking systems often make use of user-defined groups of connections. For example, a user may wish to publish information to certain user-defined groups of the user's connections in the social networking system, or the user may wish to define privacy settings or other access rights to the user's content according to such user-defined groups. As a user becomes connected with more users in the social networking system over time, mechanisms that allow a user to create groups of the user's connections become highly labor-intensive and often lead to incomplete or smaller lists because of the inherent difficulty in grouping a user's connections. Conventional social networking services lack a connection grouping mechanism that provides users with relevant suggestions for additional connections to add to an existing group of connections. Consequently, users are less likely to take advantage of groups of connections, and the user experience of the social networking service is diminished (Lento ¶3).
As per claim 3, Cohen and Lento disclose as shown above with respect to claim 2. Cohen further discloses wherein the traits include one or more of biographies, lifestyles, and personal preferences of the respective users (The Platform is operable to receive information from a user via the Internet or other network, register the user with the system, and construct a user account and user profile, wherein the user profile is stored in the Platform database. The profile is digitally constructed to store information that describes the user and allows for matching between other user profiles. A web-based GUI prompts a user to input personal information, including name, date of birth, email address, location, music interests, event interests, academic institutions, occupation, and/or other group memberships. The Platform is further operable to store pictures, videos, audio clips, or other non-textual information with a profile for displaying on social pages of the Platform. Upon registration, the Platform is operable to automatically suggest upcoming events related to information contained in the user profile. The recommendation is based on at least one factor, for example an analysis of distance of the event location from a user location, an indicated fandom level, a number of friends or connected users that are attending an event, or a membership to a group that is hosting an event, Cohen ¶58).
As per claim 4, Cohen and Lento disclose as shown above with respect to claim 3. Cohen further discloses wherein the similarity score is determined based on machine learning and textual analysis of the traits in the user profiles of the respective users (FIG. 1 illustrates one embodiment of the present invention, wherein an events page indicates events that have been matched to a user profile. The Platform utilizes artificial intelligence and machine learning, including artificial neural networks, fuzzy logic, deep learning, and/or clustering in order to provide events that are most likely to be selected or relevant to a user profile. For example, in one embodiment, a user profile includes an indication of attendance at five different NEW YORK METS games in New York City in the last year. The Platform determines that no NEW YORK METS games are being played in New York City in the next week, but several other user profiles with similar behavioral statistics, profile information, and location have bought tickets to an upcoming NEW YORK RANGERS game. Thus, the Platform suggests a NEW YORK RANGERS game as an upcoming event on the events page, Cohen ¶60).
As per claim 5, Cohen and Lento disclose as shown above with respect to claim 2. The combination of Cohen and Lento do not expressly disclose wherein: the traits include personal preference data of the respective users; and the similarity score is determined by utilizing a matrix of the personal preference data.
However, the Examiner notes that before the time of the effective filing invention, it would be obvious to try the known technique of using matrices for score generation. The claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique (using matrices) was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art.
As per claim 9, Cohen discloses as shown above with respect to claim 8. Cohen does not expressly disclose wherein selecting additional group members for each of the additional event groups includes: determining a similarity score based on the traits included in the user profiles of the qualified users, the similarity score representing the extent to which the qualified users share common traits; and selecting qualified users with the highest similarity scores to be additional group members for the additional event groups.
However, Lento teaches wherein selecting additional group members for each of the additional event groups includes: determining a similarity score based on the traits included in the user profiles of the qualified users, the similarity score representing the extent to which the qualified users share common traits; and selecting qualified users with the highest similarity scores to be additional group members for the additional event groups (the determined common characteristic may be defined to select a subset of the shared characteristics. The selection of the subset may be based on weights, configured by administrators of the social networking system, on certain complex characteristics that have been identified as being correlated to the user's interests. Predetermined weights for certain characteristics may indicate degrees of relevance to the user based on the user's interactions with objects on the social networking system. For example, user profile information may include affinity scores for other users and/or objects or other things, entities, interests, concepts, or other objects in the social networking system. A user may have a high affinity score for football. If one of the shared characteristics of the selected connections were football, this characteristic may outweigh the other matching characteristics. Thus, shared characteristics may be ranked based on these weights, such as an affinity score, configured by administrators of the social networking system, Lento ¶35; As a result, the social networking system can provide more relevant suggestions of connections to add to a new group as more groups are created by the user while also maximizing computational efficiency, ¶36; for groups, threshold, ¶38; A score may be used to evaluate connections that have not already been added to the new group. In one embodiment, the score may rely solely on the value of the positive predictor for each connection. In another embodiment, the score may rely on both the positive predictor and strong negative predictors, as discussed above. A potential suggested connection may be evaluated using a score that evaluates whether the potential suggested connection is an outlier from the positive and negative predictors. An outlier is a value that is numerically distinct from the rest of the data. A value that is within one standard deviation, for example, is not an outlier, ¶44).
Both the Lento and the Cohen references are analogous in that both are directed towards/concerned with social networking. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use Lento’s ability to provide and utilize an affinity score in Cohen’s system to improve the system and method with reasonable expectation that this would result in a social networking system that is able to improve how users are matched with other users with similar interests.
The motivation being that social networking systems often make use of user-defined groups of connections. For example, a user may wish to publish information to certain user-defined groups of the user's connections in the social networking system, or the user may wish to define privacy settings or other access rights to the user's content according to such user-defined groups. As a user becomes connected with more users in the social networking system over time, mechanisms that allow a user to create groups of the user's connections become highly labor-intensive and often lead to incomplete or smaller lists because of the inherent difficulty in grouping a user's connections. Conventional social networking services lack a connection grouping mechanism that provides users with relevant suggestions for additional connections to add to an existing group of connections. Consequently, users are less likely to take advantage of groups of connections, and the user experience of the social networking service is diminished (Lento ¶3).
As per claim 10, Cohen and Lento disclose as shown above with respect to claim 9. Cohen further discloses wherein: the event group parameters include a group capacity parameter defining a minimum and a maximum number of group members allowed for the initial event group and the additional event groups; and the number of additional event groups formed is based on the total number of qualified users who submitted group membership requests divided by the maximum number of group members allowed as defined by the group capacity parameter (minimum or maximum number of users, Cohen ¶76).
As per claim 12, Cohen and Lento disclose as shown above with respect to claim 10. Cohen further discloses wherein: the method further comprises receiving a request from a qualified user to invite a friend of the qualified user to join the event group when the event group parameters provide that qualified users are allowed to invite friends to join the event group; and the request to invite the friend links the qualified user and the friend such that selecting group members for the event group either selects both the qualified user and the friend or selects neither the qualified user and the friend (In a further embodiment, the Platform is operable to match multiple event participants and add each user to a “Smart Chat.” The Platform is operable to match at least two users based on desired match criteria and corresponding personal user profile data. For example, if the Platform receives a request from at least one user account to attend an event with three members who attend NEW YORK UNIVERSITY, the Platform is operable to construct an attendance group within the event and allow only those who have NEW YORK UNIVERSITY listed in their profiles to join. In this embodiment, the Platform is operable to send a message, post, invitation, or other communication to other user accounts that have purchased tickets to the event or include an indication of interested in attending the event with the group membership requirements. Once a qualifying user joins the group, the user account is entered into a Smart Chat with the group initiating user and other users who have joined the group, Cohen ¶69).
In addition, the Examiner asserts that claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure. However, examples of claim language, although not exhaustive, that may raise a question as to the limiting effect of the language in a claim are: (A) "adapted to" or "adapted for" clauses; (B) "wherein" clauses; and (C) "whereby" clauses (See MPEP 2111.04). In the instant case, the recited “wherein: the method further comprises receiving a request from a qualified user to invite a friend of the qualified user to join the event group when the event group parameters provide that qualified users are allowed to invite friends to join the event group; and the request to invite the friend links the qualified user and the friend such that selecting group members for the event group either selects both the qualified user and the friend or selects neither the qualified user and the friend" is not a positive method step as it do not require any actual positive recited claim steps to be performed; nor does it modify any of the positively claimed method steps.
As per claim 20, Cohen discloses as shown above with respect to claim 19. Cohen does not expressly disclose receiving a response from the second qualified user accepting or rejecting the invitation of the first qualified user to join the event group together; and selecting both the first qualified user and the second qualified user as group members for the event group if the response from the second qualified user accepts the request of the first qualified user to join the event group together and similarity scores for the first qualified user and the second qualified user based on traits included in their user profiles are sufficiently high compared to other qualified users interested in joining the event group
However, Lento teaches receiving a response from the second qualified user accepting or rejecting the invitation of the first qualified user to join the event group together; and selecting both the first qualified user and the second qualified user as group members for the event group if the response from the second qualified user accepts the request of the first qualified user to join the event group together and similarity scores for the first qualified user and the second qualified user based on traits included in their user profiles are sufficiently high compared to other qualified users interested in joining the event group (Using the received profile information about the selected connections, at least one common characteristic among the selected connections is determined 340. For example, a common characteristic of the selected connections may be that they are all male, or that they share at least two friends in common, or that the user has at least a threshold level of affinity for each connection. The common characteristic may be defined as the characteristic shared by a majority of the selected connections. Or, in another example, a common characteristic is absolutely shared by the entire set of selected connections. The common characteristic used by the social networking system may be a predetermined characteristic, such as the number of friends in common with the other added connections. Alternatively, the common characteristic may be dynamically defined based on which characteristic, or which set of characteristics, has the highest degree of similarity amongst the selected connections. As such, the common characteristic of the selected connections may be defined in various ways, yet the common characteristic is descriptive of each of the selected connections. Embodiments for determining the common characteristic are described in more detail in the following section. The determined common characteristic is then used to generate 345 a set of suggested connections, Lento ¶26).
Both the Lento and the Cohen references are analogous in that both are directed towards/concerned with social networking. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use Lento’s ability to provide and utilize an affinity score in Cohen’s system to improve the system and method with reasonable expectation that this would result in a social networking system that is able to improve how users are matched with other users with similar interests.
The motivation being that social networking systems often make use of user-defined groups of connections. For example, a user may wish to publish information to certain user-defined groups of the user's connections in the social networking system, or the user may wish to define privacy settings or other access rights to the user's content according to such user-defined groups. As a user becomes connected with more users in the social networking system over time, mechanisms that allow a user to create groups of the user's connections become highly labor-intensive and often lead to incomplete or smaller lists because of the inherent difficulty in grouping a user's connections. Conventional social networking services lack a connection grouping mechanism that provides users with relevant suggestions for additional connections to add to an existing group of connections. Consequently, users are less likely to take advantage of groups of connections, and the user experience of the social networking service is diminished (Lento ¶3).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure (additional art can be located on the PTO-892):
Baldwin et al. (US PG Pub. 2014/0047045) Customized presentation of event guest lists in a social networking system.
Baldwin et al. (US PG Pub. 2014/0089320) Generating event suggestions for users from social information.
Hull et al. (US PG Pub. 2011/0289011) Social network with field level control of data exposure.
Ju et al. (US PG Pub. 2015/0370798) Ranking And Filtering Groups Recommendations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW B WHITAKER whose telephone number is (571)270-7563. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 8am-5pm, EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lynda Jasmin can be reached on (571) 272-6782. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANDREW B WHITAKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629