DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein the set of connections entity groups is generated by a machine learning model” and in claim 3, the limitation reads “generating a set of entity groups by a first machine learning model, and generating the set of connections entity groups based on the set of entity groups by a second machine learning model trained,” and taken together claim 1 is deficient in not specifying which machine learning model is used to generate the set of connections entity groups. Also, the terms ‘set of connections entity group’ and ‘set of entity group’ serve only as labels because the claim limitations do not establish the distinction between the two. Examiner suggests using ‘based on’ or ‘wherein’ clauses to make clear what these sets represent and without that representation the claim limitation is incomplete. Claims 11 and 13 and claim 16 and 18 are analyzed similarly and rejected as being indefinite.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “determining a result…” and it is not clear what this ‘result’ is referring to in the context of the fact pattern established in claim 1. Rest of the limitations in claim 2 are cryptic, for instance, “updating… based on the result” because without knowing what the ‘result’ is referring to, it is not possible to interpret the limitation. Claims 12 and 17 are analyzed similarly.
Claim 3 recites the limitation generating a set of entity groups by a first machine learning model and does not indicate based on what and as noted in the previous paragraph, it is not clear how this relates to the limitations recited in claim 1 or claim 2 and it is not clear how the two sets are distinct. Claims 13 and 18 are analyzed similarly.
Claim 4 recites a set of limitations that appear to be unrelated to the process steps recited in claim 1. It is not clear what the context is for receiving a query by the first machine learning model. Claims 14 and 19 are analyzed similarly.
Claims 6-10 recites limitations that appear to recite details related to a gaming application but lack contextual underpinning in the parent claims, especially claim 1. Claim 2 recites the cryptic claim term “result” and it is not clear if that term encompasses the gaming details enumerated in claim 7-10. Claim 8 recites the claim term ‘entity’ and it is not clear how this relates to the first user or the second user and other limitations recited in claim 1 and its other dependent claims. Claim 10 recites the term “entity” and it is not clear how this relates to the first user or the second user and other limitations recited in claim 1 and its other dependent claims. In general, claims 6-10 are deficient in that they do not clearly relate to the process steps recited in claim 1 and claims 2-5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Struttle et al. (US 9,558,242 B2, hereinafter Struttle) in view of Torstensen et al. (US 2023/0325735 A1, hereinafter Torstensen).
Regarding claim 11, Struttle teaches a computing apparatus comprising:
circuitry; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the circuitry, causes the circuitry to:
receive a request associated with a first user identifier (ID) to interact with a networking application of a connections networking system, [Figure 2. 205, Abstract, Col. 1, lines 30-40 receiving a recommendation request from a requesting user];
subsequent to the first user ID interact with the networking application of the connections networking system:
retrieve connections data associated with the first user ID, the connections data comprising one or more parameters for the first user ID, [Figure 2, 205, 210, location-based signal (connection data) and social graph information];
determine a connections entity group from a set of connections entity groups that is associated with the first user ID using the connections data, [Figure 2, Col. 2, lines 45-67; Figure 3, 315 social graph information associated with the requesting user to determine the group associated with the requesting user; Col.6, lines 48-67];
determine a second user ID associated with the connections entity group using a set of common parameters from the one or more parameters for the first user ID and one or more parameters for the second user ID, [Figures 2 and 3, Col. 6, lines 48-67]; and
cause presentation of the second user ID on a graphical user interface (GUI) of a client system as a candidate to interact with the networking application of the connections networking system, [Figure 2, 220, display recommendation list for the requesting user];
Struttle does not explicitly teach (wherein the set of connections entity groups) is generated by a machine learning model and IDs for users and groups;
Torstensen teaches (the group module employs a machine learning model to generate groups) wherein the set of connections entity groups is generated by a machine learning model, [see Par.[0072], [0076]]; Par.[00; and IDs for users and groups, [Par.[0022]. [0063], [0113] (implicit in Struttle)];
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the group module in Struttle to use a machine learning model. The motivation/suggestion would have been to automate the process of group information item generator utilize group data determination logic to determine group data for presentation to a user. In particular, group data determination logic may comprise computer instructions including rules, conditions, associations, classification models, or other criteria for, among other operations, determining a group information item, determining relevance of an information item to a particular user, scoring or ranking group information items for relevance, or contextualizing a group information item for a user in the context of gaming or other applications, [Torstensen: Par.[0076]].
Method claim 1 corresponds to claim 11 and is rejected as above.
Non-transitory CRM claim 16 corresponds to claim 11 and is rejected as above.
Regarding claim 2, Struttle and Torstensen disclose the method of claim 1, Struttle teaches determining a result of the first user ID interacting with the networking application of the connections networking system, [claim term ‘result’ is without controlling definition and does not relate to what is recited in claim 1; Figure 2, 205, 210, location-based signal (connection data)];
selecting the connections entity group from the set of connections entity groups that is associated with the first user ID, the set of connections entity groups arranged in a sequential order, [Figure 2, 205, 210, retrieving social graph information indicates connections entity groups specific to the first user; Figure 3, 315 social graph information associated with the requesting user to determine the group associated with the requesting user; Col.6, lines 48-67];
updating a position of the connections entity group within the sequential order of the set of connections entity groups based on the result, [Figure 2, 215 ranked list of groups]; and causing presentation of the sequential order of the set of connections entity groups on the GUI, [[Figure 2, 220, display ranked list for the requesting user].
Claim 12 and 17 correspond to claim 2 and are rejected as above.
Regarding claim 5, Struttle and Torstensen disclose the method of claim 2, and Struttle teaches comprising sending a message to a client system associated with the second user ID to request an interaction with the networking application of the connections networking system with the first user ID, [Col. 8, lines 45-62 recommended group members are notified].
Claims 15 and 20 correspond to claim 5 and are rejected as above.
Regarding claim 6, Struttle and Torstensen disclose the method of claim 2, and Torstensen teaches wherein the networking application is a gaming application, [dependent claim is obvious over Struttle in view of Torstensen for the same reasons set forth in claim 1; Par.[0108] notes gaming context].
Examiner’s Note: Claims 3, 4, 13, 14, 18, and 19 are deficient as indicated in 112 rejection because of a lack of a clear contextual reference to the process steps in claim 1, 11, or 16. Claims 7-10 do not appear to relate to the process steps established in claim 1 as explained in the 112 rejection and it is also not clear what the sequence of the process steps in claims 7-10 is in relation with other claim limitations. Examiner suggests incorporating the gaming context seamlessly with the subject matter in the other claims and more importantly in the independent claims to set proper context. Without this clarity, it is not possible to adjudicate the proper scope and breadth of the claims as a whole and also to apply prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PADMA MUNDUR whose telephone number is (571)272-5383. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 AM to 6:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Wing Chan can be reached at 571 272 7493. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PADMA MUNDUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2441