DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
The following is a Non-final Office Action in response to amendments and remarks filed 23 January 2026.
Claims 1 and 11 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending 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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 13 February 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicants argue that the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection under the Alice Corp. vs. CLS Bank Int’l be withdrawn; however the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner notes that in order to be patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101, the claims must be directed towards a patent eligible concept, which, the instant claims are not directed. Contrary to Applicants’ assertion that the claims are not a certain method of organizing human activity, the Examiner notes that identifying a user with the highest strength of connection to a target user is a function that people have traditionally performed such as networking events, degrees of separation, leveraging references, connections, or contacts at organizations, using mutual friends or family to introduce someone of potential value to another user, even genealogy of how users could be connected, which is clearly not only managing social activities, but also advertising, marketing, sales activities or behaviors ( Next, the claims are not directed to a practical application of the concept. The claims do not result in improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. They do not effect a particular treatment for a disease. They are not applied with or by a particular machine. They do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. And they are not applied in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception (i.e., identifying a user with the highest strength of connection to a target user) to a particular technological environment (i.e., with the use of generic computers or computing components such as servers). Here, again as noted in the previous rejection, mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept - MPEP 2016.05(f). The amended “retrieving...from an electronic mail server” and “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, this argument is not persuasive, and the claim(s) is/are not patent eligible, even when considered as a whole.
The Examiner also notes this argument appears to be whether or not the use of computer or computing components for increased speed and efficiency integrates the claims into a practical application; however the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Nor, in addressing the second step of Alice, does claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer provide a sufficient inventive concept. See Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[T]he fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.”); CLS Bank, Int’l v. Alice Corp., 717 F.3d 1269, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (en banc) aff’d, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) (“[S]imply appending generic computer functionality to lend speed or efficiency to the performance of an otherwise abstract concept does not meaningfully limit claim scope for purposes of patent eligibility.” (citations omitted)). As such, this argument is not persuasive, and the claim(s) is/are not patent eligible, even when considered as a whole.
Applicant argues that Zhang does not disclose “retrieving, by a computer program and from an electronic mail server, a plurality of contact entries from users within an organization’;” however the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted in the updated rejection below, Zhang is able to obtain the social information from “For example, as illustrated in FIG. 2, the entity types that exist in one implementation of a social graph that is consistent with an embodiment of the invention are: a person, a company, an educational institution (e.g., college, school or university), and a group (e.g., an online group, hosted by the social network service, or some other third party server system, or, a real-world organization, such as a professional organization.), (Zhang ¶52)” which could also include email applications (Zhang ¶48 and ¶51). Applicant argues that an email server cannot be outside of the organization; however the Examiner respectfully disagrees for a plurality of reasons. Firstly, the server could be “outside” of the organization as it would be on a server not part of, or internal to the organization physically (such as a cloud server physically residing somewhere different than the organization). Secondly, a host service system for email (and servers thereof) which are administered/hosted/platformed by an external company/service are quite common. For example, Microsoft Outlook which is utilized by many organizations is, in and of itself, a separate, third-party, distinct external email server system. As such, this argument is not persuasive, and the rejection not overcome.
Applicant argues that Zhang does not disclose “grouping, by the computer program, the plurality of contact entries into a plurality of contact entry groupings, wherein each contact entry grouping comprises at least one common attribute, wherein the contact entry groupings reduce a number of contact entries required to be queried;” however the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Fig. 1 of Zhang shows the “Group Data” [24] as part of the data layer in a database “As shown in FIG. 1, the data layer includes several databases, including databases 18 for storing data for various entities of the social graph, including member profiles 18, company profiles 20, educational institution profiles 22, as well as information concerning various online or offline groups 24 (Zhang ¶44)” and “With some embodiments, members of a social network service may be able to self-organize into groups, or interest groups, organized around a subject matter or topic of interest. Accordingly, the data for a group may be stored in database 24. When a member joins a group, his or her membership in the group will be reflected in the social graph data stored in the database with reference number 26. With some embodiments, members may subscribe to or join groups affiliated with one or more companies. For instance, with some embodiments, members of the social network service may indicate an affiliation with a company at which they are employed, such that news and events pertaining to the company are automatically communicated to the members. With some embodiments, members may be allowed to subscribe to receive information concerning companies other than the company with which they are employed. Here again, membership in a group, a subscription or following relationship with a company or group, as well as an employment relationship with a company, are all examples of the different types of relationships that may exist between different entities, as defined by the social graph and modelled with the social graph data of the database with reference number 26 (Zhang ¶47).” Here, Zhang further discloses the functionally of being able to search (or query) any of the databases (which would reasonably include the group data within a database), and thus anticipates the claimed as aspects above and of querying, by the computer program, the contact entry groupings with the query. As such, the rejection was not overcome. The Examiner also notes that one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the searching for a group of members sharing a common attribute as the equivalent of grouping users by a common attribute (as noted in the previous rejections). Furthermore, the Examiner also notes 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 clause " wherein the contact entry groupings reduce a number of contact entries required to be queried " 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. Similarly, the recited wherein clause is not a positive apparatus or system element since it doesn’t structurally limit the system or apparatus and merely describes the intended use of the system and/or the intended result of the use of the system or apparatus.
In response to arguments in reference to any depending claims that have not been individually addressed, all rejections made towards these dependent claims are maintained due to a lack of reply by the Applicants in regards to distinctly and specifically pointing out the supposed errors in the Examiner's prior office action (37 CFR 1.111). The Examiner asserts that the Applicants only argue that the dependent claims should be allowable because the independent claims are unobvious and patentable over the prior art.
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) identifying a user with the highest strength of connection to a target user which is an abstract idea of organizing human activities.
The limitations of “grouping...the plurality of contact entries into a plurality of contact entry groupings, wherein each contact entry grouping comprises at least one common attribute wherein the contact entry groupings reduce a number of contact entries required to be queried; querying...the contact entry groupings with the query identifying... one of the contact entry groupings for the target individual based on the query; determining...a strength of connection to the target individual for contact entries in the contact entry grouping; and returning,...an identification of the user with a highest strength of connection,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers 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 “by a computer program,” (or “A non-transitory computer readable storage medium, including instructions stored thereon, which when read and executed by one or more computer processors, cause the one or more computer processors to perform steps comprising:” in claim 11) 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, “grouping,” “querying,” identifying,” and “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually grouping users based upon attributes which is managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as one of the methods of organizing human activities, while some of the limitations may be based on mathematical concepts, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” 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 “retrieving...from an electronic mail server” and “receiving” steps are simply an insignificant data gathering activity, and the “returning” is simply a post solution output. Next, claim 11 only recites one additional element – using one or more computer processors to perform the steps. The one or more computer processors 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). Again, method claim 1 is devoid of structure whatsoever and thus does amount to significantly more. 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 one or more processors 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 “retrieving...from an electronic mail server” “receiving” and “returning” 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 2-10 and 12-20 recite(s) the additional limitation(s) further limiting the data and source of the data (personal information, organization, attributes) 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 claims 1 and 11, 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) 1-4, 9-14, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (US PG Pub. 2015/02544371).
As per claims 1 and 11, Zhang discloses a method and non-transitory computer readable storage medium, including instructions stored thereon, which when read and executed by one or more computer processors, cause the one or more computer processors to perform steps comprising (processors, methods, Zhang ¶143-¶145; computer system, ¶147; drive unit contains a machine-readable medium, ¶148):
retrieving, by a computer program and from an electronic mail server, a plurality of contact entries from users within an organization (For example, with some embodiments, the entity types may include people, companies, educational institutions (e.g., schools and universities), and groups (e.g., online groups, or professional organizations), among others. Accordingly, the edges that connect any two nodes (entities) represent types of associations between the entities, and will therefore depend in part on the entities involved. For example, an edge connecting two nodes that represent people may be representative of a specific type of relationship between the two people, including a direct, bilateral connection between the two people. An edge connecting a first node, representing a person, with a second node, representing a company, may be representative of an employment relationship (current or previous) between the person and the company. In addition to the edges having a particular type, representative of the nature of the relationship between two entities, each edge connecting two entities is assigned an edge score to reflect the strength, or relevance, of the particular association, Zhang ¶33; For example, as illustrated in FIG. 2, the entity types that exist in one implementation of a social graph that is consistent with an embodiment of the invention are: a person, a company, an educational institution (e.g., college, school or university), and a group (e.g., an online group, hosted by the social network service, or some other third party server system, or, a real-world organization, such as a professional organization.), ¶52; email application, ¶48 and ¶51) (Examiner notes the other third party server system as the ability to include an email server);
grouping, by the computer program, the plurality of contact entries into a plurality of contact entry groupings, wherein each contact entry grouping comprises at least one common attribute, wherein the contact entry groupings reduce a number of contact entries required to be queried (With some embodiments, and specifically in the context of an application that enables users to search for or otherwise browse member profiles, the strongest or most relevant connection path or paths connecting the user with a target member will be presented when the user is viewing the profile of the target member. For example, a user may perform a search of member profiles by specifying various desirable member attributes or characteristics. For instance, a person may perform a search by specifying one or more member profile characteristics, including: a company at which one is employed, a job title, a college or university attended, and one or more possessed skills. In response to the person's query, the social network service may present to the person a list of members having member profile attributes or characteristics that match (partially or fully) the characteristics specified in the query, Zhang ¶38; Referring again to FIG. 4, there is an edge 56 connecting Jane Smith to ACME Products Inc., which represents Jane's affiliation with ACME Products Inc., as the executive chairman and founder of the company. The score or weight assigned to this edge 56 indicates the strength of this affiliation. For example, with some embodiments, the weight can be computed based on the overlap between Jane's network and the network of ACME Products Inc., where the node in the social graph representing ACME Products Inc. is connected to each member who is a current or former employee of the company. That is, for a member M1 and a company C1, W(M1, C1)=Conn(M1, C1)/SQRT[(Conn(M1)*Conn(C1)] where W(M1, C1) denotes the weight of the edge connecting M1 and C1, Conn(M1, C1) denotes the number of members M1 is connected to who are also current or past employees of C1, Conn(M1) denotes the total number of connections in M1's network, and Conn(C1) denotes the total number of members who are current or past employees of C1. Similarly, there is an edge 58 connecting Jane Smith to State University 52, which represents Jane's affiliation with State University as an alumnus of the university. The weight of this edge indicates the strength of this affiliation. For example, the weight of an edge connecting a member M1 and a school S1 could be computed as W(M1, S1)=Conn(M1, S1)/Conn(M1), where Conn(M1, S1) denotes the number of members M1 is connected to who are also students or alumni of S1, and Conn(M1) denotes the total number of member connections in M1's network, ¶59; see also Fig. 1--As shown in FIG. 1, the data layer includes several databases, including databases 18 for storing data for various entities of the social graph, including member profiles 18, company profiles 20, educational institution profiles 22, as well as information concerning various online or offline groups 24, ¶44; With some embodiments, members of a social network service may be able to self-organize into groups, or interest groups, organized around a subject matter or topic of interest. Accordingly, the data for a group may be stored in database 24. When a member joins a group, his or her membership in the group will be reflected in the social graph data stored in the database with reference number 26. With some embodiments, members may subscribe to or join groups affiliated with one or more companies. For instance, with some embodiments, members of the social network service may indicate an affiliation with a company at which they are employed, such that news and events pertaining to the company are automatically communicated to the members. With some embodiments, members may be allowed to subscribe to receive information concerning companies other than the company with which they are employed. Here again, membership in a group, a subscription or following relationship with a company or group, as well as an employment relationship with a company, are all examples of the different types of relationships that may exist between different entities, as defined by the social graph and modelled with the social graph data of the database with reference number 26, ¶47);
receiving, by the computer program, a query for one of the users having a contact entry with a target individual (With some embodiments, and specifically in the context of an application that enables users to search for or otherwise browse member profiles, the strongest or most relevant connection path or paths connecting the user with a target member will be presented when the user is viewing the profile of the target member. For example, a user may perform a search of member profiles by specifying various desirable member attributes or characteristics. For instance, a person may perform a search by specifying one or more member profile characteristics, including: a company at which one is employed, a job title, a college or university attended, and one or more possessed skills. In response to the person's query, the social network service may present to the person a list of members having member profile attributes or characteristics that match (partially or fully) the characteristics specified in the query, Zhang ¶38);
querying, by the computer program, the contact entry groupings with the query (With some embodiments, the user that is performing a search of member profiles, or otherwise browsing member profiles, may specify as a sort of proxy an alternative entity (e.g., person, company or other organization) to serve as the starting or beginning node for purposes of identifying the connection paths to an identified target member. For instance, if an independent party has been tasked with inferring the organization chart for a particular part of a particular company, party may specify that the company be used as the starting node in the social graph of any connection paths to a particular target member. As such, a pathfinder module of the social network service will attempt to identify and present connection paths connecting the specified company with the identified target member. In such a scenario, the nodes forming the connection paths between the company and the target member may include entities of various types, including but not limited to members who are current or past employees of the specified company, other companies that are associated with the specified company, and schools whose graduates are employed by the specified company, Zhang ¶39) (Examiner notes the ability of Zhang to search the databases as cited above in Zhang ¶44 and ¶47 as the ability to search or query entry groupings);
identifying, by the computer program, one of the contact entry groupings for the target individual based on the query (With some embodiments, and specifically in the context of an application that enables users to search for or otherwise browse member profiles, the strongest or most relevant connection path or paths connecting the user with a target member will be presented when the user is viewing the profile of the target member. For example, a user may perform a search of member profiles by specifying various desirable member attributes or characteristics. For instance, a person may perform a search by specifying one or more member profile characteristics, including: a company at which one is employed, a job title, a college or university attended, and one or more possessed skills. In response to the person's query, the social network service may present to the person a list of members having member profile attributes or characteristics that match (partially or fully) the characteristics specified in the query, Zhang ¶38);
determining, by the computer program, a strength of connection to the target individual for the contact entries in the contact entry grouping (for each connection path connecting a user to a target member, a path score is derived to reflect the overall connection strength (or relevance) of the path connecting the user with the target. For example, with some embodiments, the path score may be derived by simply aggregating (e.g., summing, or otherwise combining with an algorithm or formula) the individual edge scores that correspond with the edges connecting the nodes that ultimately connect the user with the target member, Zhang ¶35; ); and
returning, by the computer program, an identification of the user with the contact entry having a highest strength of connection (visual representation with highest path score, Zhang ¶37; With some embodiments, and specifically in the context of an application that enables users to search for or otherwise browse member profiles, the strongest or most relevant connection path or paths connecting the user with a target member will be presented when the user is viewing the profile of the target member. For example, a user may perform a search of member profiles by specifying various desirable member attributes or characteristics. For instance, a person may perform a search by specifying one or more member profile characteristics, including: a company at which one is employed, a job title, a college or university attended, and one or more possessed skills. In response to the person's query, the social network service may present to the person a list of members having member profile attributes or characteristics that match (partially or fully) the characteristics specified in the query, ¶38).
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 clause " wherein the contact entry groupings reduce a number of contact entries required to be queried " 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. Similarly, the recited wherein clause is not a positive apparatus or system element since it doesn’t structurally limit the system or apparatus and merely describes the intended use of the system and/or the intended result of the use of the system or apparatus.
As per claims 2 and 12, Zhang discloses as shown above with respect to claims 1 and 11. Zhang further discloses wherein the users are employees of the organization (employees of same company, Zhang ¶62).
As per claims 3 and 13, Zhang discloses as shown above with respect to claims 1 and 11. Zhang further discloses wherein the common attribute comprises a name, a phone number, and/or an email address (With many social network services, members are prompted to provide a variety of personal information, which may be displayed in a member's personal web page. Such information is commonly referred to as "personal profile information", or simply "profile information", and when shown collectively, it is commonly referred to as a member's profile. For example, with some of the many social network services in use today, the personal information that is commonly requested and displayed as part of a member's profile includes a member's age (e.g., birth date), gender, contact information, home town, address, the name of the member's spouse and/or family members, a photograph of the member, interests, and so forth. With certain social network services, such as some business network services, a member's personal information may include information commonly included in a professional resume or curriculum vitae, such as information about a person's education, employment history, job skills, professional organizations, and so forth. With some social network services, a member's profile may be viewable to the public by default, or alternatively, the member may specify that only some portion of the profile is to be public by default. As such, many social network services serve as a sort of directory of people to be searched and browsed, Zhang ¶6; For example, a user may perform a search of member profiles by specifying various desirable member attributes or characteristics. For instance, a person may perform a search by specifying one or more member profile characteristics, ¶38).
As per claims 4 and 14, Zhang discloses as shown above with respect to claims 1 and 11. Zhang further discloses wherein the strength of connection is based on presence of personalized information for the target individual in the contact entry (With many social network services, members are prompted to provide a variety of personal information, which may be displayed in a member's personal web page. Such information is commonly referred to as "personal profile information", or simply "profile information", and when shown collectively, it is commonly referred to as a member's profile. For example, with some of the many social network services in use today, the personal information that is commonly requested and displayed as part of a member's profile includes a member's age (e.g., birth date), gender, contact information, home town, address, the name of the member's spouse and/or family members, a photograph of the member, interests, and so forth. With certain social network services, such as some business network services, a member's personal information may include information commonly included in a professional resume or curriculum vitae, such as information about a person's education, employment history, job skills, professional organizations, and so forth. With some social network services, a member's profile may be viewable to the public by default, or alternatively, the member may specify that only some portion of the profile is to be public by default. As such, many social network services serve as a sort of directory of people to be searched and browsed, Zhang ¶6; For example, a user may perform a search of member profiles by specifying various desirable member attributes or characteristics. For instance, a person may perform a search by specifying one or more member profile characteristics, ¶38).
As per claims 9 and 19, Zhang discloses as shown above with respect to claims 1 and 11. Zhang further discloses wherein the strength of connection to the target individual is determined using an algorithm comprising weightings determined using a machine learning engine (machine learning, algorithms, Zhang ¶36; weights, ¶35 and ¶58).
As per claims 10 and 20, Zhang discloses as shown above with respect to claims 1 and 11. Zhang further discloses wherein the plurality of contact entries are retrieved from a contact management program or an email server (various other databases may be used to store data corresponding with other entities, Zhang ¶44) (Examiner notes the ability to include various databases corresponding to other entities as including a contact management program or an email server).
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) 5-8 and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US PG Pub. 2015/02544371) and further in view of Shalunov et al. (US PG Pub. 2016/0358214)
As per claims 5 and 15, Zhang discloses as shown above with respect to claims 4 and 14. Zhang does not expressly disclose wherein the personalized information comprises a nickname for the target individual, a home address for the target individual, a personal email address for the target individual, and a birthday for the target individual.
However, Shalunov teaches wherein the personalized information comprises a nickname for the target individual, a home address for the target individual, a personal email address for the target individual, and a birthday for the target individual (By contrast, the disclosed embodiments require no explicit user action, but rather infer who a user's friends are, what their hobbies and interests are, by examining the location data by any of the methods described herein. This permits numerous improvements over the traditional explicit approach. Not only do users not have to take the time to initiate and maintain friendship lists explicitly, they do not have to even categorize associates into various pre-defined categories or “circles.” If two people are at the same address most nights, for example, we infer they live in the same home, whether as roommates or family members. If two people are together during weekday business hours, we infer they are coworkers. If two people are at the same bowling alley, climbing gym, or pub at the same time on a regular basis, we infer not only that they are friends, but more specifically, that they are climbing buddies, bowling teammates, or drinking buddies, respectively, Shalunov ¶54; time of day, communication, ¶55).
Both the Shalunov and Zhang references are analogous in that both are directed towards/concerned with inferring social networks. 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 Shalunov’s ability to utilize mobile device and external data in Zhang’s system to improve the system and method with reasonable expectation that this would result in a social network management system that could retrieve and analyze data from not only a professional network but a more accurate social network.
The motivation being that the traditional social networks, such as Facebook, engage users directly, asking them explicitly about their interests, what they “like”, who their friends are, to whom they're married or with whom they're in a relationship, and so on. This approach has two major flaws: it's time-consuming and inaccurate. To work properly, users must spend a lot of time inputting this data. The data is likely incomplete or inaccurate even from the moment a user enters it, and any of the data that is accurate likely becomes obsolete quickly. Users must explicitly specify their interests and locate, send, and confirm friendship requests. Few users accurately update their lists as their interests and friendships evolve over time, so this information can quickly become out of date (Shalunov ¶3).
As per claims 6 and 16, Zhang discloses as shown above with respect to claims 1 and 11. Zhang does not expressly disclose wherein the strength of connection to the target individual is further based on a type of meetings and communications with the target individual, a volume of meetings and communications with the target individual, and/or common engagements with the target individual.
However, Shalunov teaches wherein the strength of connection to the target individual is further based on a type of meetings and communications with the target individual, a volume of meetings and communications with the target individual, and/or common engagements with the target individual (By contrast, the disclosed embodiments require no explicit user action, but rather infer who a user's friends are, what their hobbies and interests are, by examining the location data by any of the methods described herein. This permits numerous improvements over the traditional explicit approach. Not only do users not have to take the time to initiate and maintain friendship lists explicitly, they do not have to even categorize associates into various pre-defined categories or “circles.” If two people are at the same address most nights, for example, we infer they live in the same home, whether as roommates or family members. If two people are together during weekday business hours, we infer they are coworkers. If two people are at the same bowling alley, climbing gym, or pub at the same time on a regular basis, we infer not only that they are friends, but more specifically, that they are climbing buddies, bowling teammates, or drinking buddies, respectively, Shalunov ¶54; time of day, communication, ¶55).
Both the Shalunov and Zhang references are analogous in that both are directed towards/concerned with inferring social networks. 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 Shalunov’s ability to utilize mobile device and external data in Zhang’s system to improve the system and method with reasonable expectation that this would result in a social network management system that could retrieve and analyze data from not only a professional network but a more accurate social network.
The motivation being that the traditional social networks, such as Facebook, engage users directly, asking them explicitly about their interests, what they “like”, who their friends are, to whom they're married or with whom they're in a relationship, and so on. This approach has two major flaws: it's time-consuming and inaccurate. To work properly, users must spend a lot of time inputting this data. The data is likely incomplete or inaccurate even from the moment a user enters it, and any of the data that is accurate likely becomes obsolete quickly. Users must explicitly specify their interests and locate, send, and confirm friendship requests. Few users accurately update their lists as their interests and friendships evolve over time, so this information can quickly become out of date (Shalunov ¶3).
As per claims 7 and 17, Zhang and Shalunov disclose as shown above with respect to claims 6 and 16. Zhang further discloses wherein the common engagements are retrieved from a public database (various other databases may be used to store data corresponding with other entities, Zhang ¶44) (Examiner notes the ability to include various databases corresponding to other entities as including public databases).
As per claims 8 and 18, Zhang and Shalunov disclose as shown above with respect to claims 6 and 16. Zhang further discloses wherein the type of meetings and communications with the target individual and/or the volume of meetings and communications with the target individual are retrieved from a customer relationship management system (various other databases may be used to store data corresponding with other entities, Zhang ¶44) (Examiner notes the ability to include various databases corresponding to other entities as including customer relationship management systems).
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights