DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
1. This office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on 01/20/2026 in response to PTO Office Action mailed 10/23/2025. The Applicant’s remarks and amendments to the claims and/or the specification were considered with the results as follows.
2. In response to the last Office Action, claims 25, 31, 32, 33 and 39 are amended. As a result, claims 25-44 are pending in this office action.
3. The 35 USC 112 rejection have been withdrawn due to amendment filed on 09/03/2025.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments with respect to 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive and the details are as follow:
Applicant’s argument with respect to claims 25-44 stated as “The process of parsing text to search for a plurality of text strings and associate the second profile to a first text category is inherently a machine operation that requires a processor executing code to analyze unstructured text data and updating a text category to the second profile. A human mind, in contrast, does not possess the capability to electronically parse profile text to search for a plurality of text strings and associate them to a specific text category… a human does not have the capability to remove a card from the stack of cards on the graphical user interface. This is inherently technological action on user interface data elements that cannot be practically performed in the human mind or by pen or paper”.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the Examiner disagrees because the courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, “[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind.” Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’); Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324, 117 USPQ2d 1693, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that computer-implemented method for "anonymous loan shopping" was an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer"). The courts have identified numerous product claims as reciting mental process-type abstract ideas, for instance the product claims to computer systems and computer-readable media in Versata Dev. Group. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 115 USPQ2d 1681 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In this case, parsing text to search for a plurality of text strings and associate a profile to a first text category and/or removing a profile card from a stack of profiles based on scores are performing a mental process on a generic computer. The claims recited an abstract idea, despite the fact that the claimed matching profiles and/or filtering unmatched profiles steps are performed on a computer. Therefore, claims 25-44 are performing a mental process on a generic computer.
Applicant’s arguments stated as “Amended claims 25 implements its specific technical solution by requiring the processor to pare text to search or a plurality of text strings and associate the second profile to a first category based on identifying one of those strings. The claims tie this backend text analysis to a specific technical improvement in the graphical user interface’s behavior…Amended claims 25 requires the system to remove a card associated with the second profile from the stack of cards on the graphical user interface…solves the specific technical problem of conventional online matchmaking systems showing irrelevant entities to users…”.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the Examiner disagrees because claim 25 does not include additional elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The amended feature “displaying the set of potential profile recommendations on a graphical user interface of a user device and removing a set of profile comprising a card associated with the set of profile from the stacks of cards on the graphical user interface,” which comprises “moving, within a set of profiles displayed on the GUI,” merely applies the abstract idea on a computer with insignificant output activity. This is no different from claiming “reordering based on score” and then “outputting the reordered results.” The claimed invention is described as a concept that can be performed in the human mind, and Applicant is merely claiming that concept performed on a general computer or using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. The additional element recited in claim 25 does not sufficient to qualify as “significantly more,” since the claimed invention merely adds the words “apply it” to the judicial exception or provides only instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. For example, a limitation indicating that a particular function, such as creating and maintaining electronic records, is performed by a computer is not enough, as discussed in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 225–26 (2014), 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). For example, the feature in claim 25, determining whether a keyword is associated with a user profile and calculating a score associated with the user profile based at least on the keywords, is not sufficient to demonstrate an improvement in computer functionality or an improvement to a database. The recited concept can be performed in the human mind, including through observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion. Other than reciting a computer to move the position of a user profile according to the calculated score and deciding whether to display or remove the user profile on the graphical user interface based on keyword management, nothing in the claim elements prevents these steps from being practically performed in the mind.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claimed feature, determining scores for user profiles based on keywords, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, merely implemented using generic computer components. A person could determine profile scores based on keywords and gather results mentally. The amended limitation is therefore a mere instruction to implement an abstract idea on a computer, using the computer only as a tool to retrieve and display data after a series of data-gathering steps. These data-evaluating and data-gathering steps constitute insignificant extra-solution activity, and the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Thus, taken alone, the additional limitations do not amount to significantly more than the identified abstract idea.
Further, this case differs from Example 42 since Example 42 included a specific recitation of allowing users to access patients’ medical records and receive updated patient information in real time from other users, which is a method of managing interactions between people, which represented an improvement over the prior art. Examiner 42 recites a combination of additional elements including storing information, providing remote access over a network, converting updated information that was input by a user in a non-standardized form to a standardized format, automatically generating a message whenever updated information is stored, and transmitting the message to all of the users. Thus, example 42 as a whole integrates the method of organizing human activity into a practical application. Specifically, the additional elements recite a specific improvement over prior art systems by allowing remote users to share information in real time in a standardized format regardless of the format in which the information was input by the user. Claim 25 recites matching profiles and reordering profiles based on scores, it is not clear that such action would constitute a technological improvement. Rather, it appears conventional to place the highest-ranked score at the top. Although Applicant asserts that the combination of contextual considerations and reordering provides an improvement, it appears to be merely an improved abstract idea displayed on a computer. The additional feature merely uses a computer/computer component as a tool to display result data after a series of data gathering steps. The output of the result data and data gathering steps are insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional elements (or combination of elements) “re-arranging” is well-understood, routine or conventional activity (See “Navigating virtual stack of images” in para. [0029] at US 2003/0189602). Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitation as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Therefore, claim 25 is ineligible subject under 35 USC 101.
To demonstrate that the involvement of a computer improves the technology, the claims must recite details regarding how the computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of the computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Therefore, the claims must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic computer or machine to qualify as an improvement to existing technology. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) for more information about mere instructions to apply an exception. Accordingly, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
5. Applicant’s arguments with respect 35 USC 103 rejections have been considered but are moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 25-44 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obvious double patenting over claims 1-15 of Patent No.: 8,566,327 B2. The subject matter claimed in the instant application is disclosed in the Patent No.: 8,566,327 B2. For example:
Patent No.: US 8,566,327 B1
Instant Application 18/794,236
6. A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by a processor, are configured to: receive a plurality of user profiles, each user profile comprising traits of a respective user; receive a request requesting matches from a first user, the first user associated with a first user profile; determine a first set of results in response to receiving the request for matches, the first set of results comprising one or more of the plurality of user profiles; receive, from a second user, activity associated with a profile of a third user, the second user and the third user different than the first user; determine a rating of the profile of the third user based on a number of times the profile of the third user was selected by users other than the first user; identify a profile of a fourth user from the plurality of user profiles in response to receiving the activity from the second user associated with the profile of the third user, the profile of the fourth user not in the first set of results; determine a rating of the profile of the fourth user based on a number of times the profile of the fourth user was selected by users other than the first user; compare the rating of the profile of the third user with the rating of the profile of the fourth user; determine a difference between a preference associated with the first user and a characteristic included in the profile of the fourth user; reduce an impact of the difference between the preference associated with the first user and the characteristic included in the profile of the fourth user; add the profile of the fourth user to the first set of results in response to comparing the rating of the profile of the third user with the rating of the profile of the fourth user and in response to reducing the impact of the difference between the preference associated with the first user and the characteristic included in the profile of the fourth user; and provide to the first user the profile of the fourth user to the first user.
1. A computer-implemented method for profile matching, comprising: receiving a plurality of user profiles, each user profile comprising traits of a respective user; receiving a request requesting matches, the request associated with a first user; determining a first set of results in response to receiving the request, the first set of results comprising one or more of the plurality of user profiles; receiving, from a second user, activity associated with a profile of a third user, the second user and the third user different than the first user; determining a rating of the profile of the third user based on a number of times the profile of the third user was selected by users other than the first user; identifying a profile of a fourth user from the plurality of user profiles in response to receiving the activity from the second user associated with the profile of the third user, the profile of the fourth user not in the first set of results; determining a rating of the profile of the fourth user based on a number of times the profile of the fourth user was selected by users other than the first user; comparing the rating of the profile of the third user with the rating of the profile of the fourth user; determining a difference between a preference associated with the first user and a characteristic included in the profile of the fourth user; reducing an impact of the difference between the preference associated with the first user and the characteristic included in the profile of the fourth user; adding the profile of the fourth user to the first set of results in response to comparing the rating of the profile of the third user with the rating of the profile of the fourth user and in response to reducing the impact of the difference between the preference associated with the first user and the characteristic included in the profile of the fourth user; and providing the profile of the fourth user to the first user
11. A system for profile matching, comprising: an interface operable to: receive a plurality of user profiles, each user profile comprising traits of a respective user; receive a request requesting matches, the request associated with a first user; receive, from a second user, activity associated with a profile of a third user, the second user different than the first user; and a processor coupled to the interface and operable to: determine a first set of results in response to receiving the request, the first set of results comprising one or more of the plurality of user profiles; determine a rating of the profile of the third user based on a number of times the profile of the third user was selected by users other than the first user; identify a profile of a fourth user from the plurality of user profiles in response to receiving the activity from the second user associated with the profile of the third user, the profile of the fourth user not in the first set of results; determine a rating of the profile of the fourth user based on a number of times the profile of the fourth user was selected by users other than the first user; compare the rating of the profile of the third user with the rating of the profile of the fourth user; determine a difference between a preference associated with the first user and a characteristic included in the profile of the fourth user; reduce an impact of the difference between the preference associated with the first user and the characteristic included in the profile of the fourth user; add the profile of the fourth user to the first set of results in response to comparing the rating of the profile of the third user with the rating of the profile of the fourth user and in response to reducing the impact of the difference between the preference associated with the first user and the characteristic included in the profile of the fourth user; and the interface further operable to provide the profile of the fourth user to the first user.
25. A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by a processor, are configured to perform a method for allowing two users of a matching system to communicate with one another, the method comprising the following steps: receive a search request from a first user, the search request indicating a preference of the first user; the first user being associated with a first profile;
in response to receiving the search request, generate a set of potential profile recommendations for the first user; receive a keyword from the first user; at a first time, determine whether the keyword is associated with a second profile from the set of potential profile recommendations,
display the set of potential profile recommendations on a graphical user interface of a user device, wherein the set of potential profile recommendations are displayed as a stack of cards on the graphical user interface;
determine a score associated with the second profile based at least on the keyword and a similarity between the first profile and the second profile, the determined score indicative of a relevance of the second profile to the preference of the first user; dynamically reorder, for display on a graphical user interface, the set of potential recommendation according to their relevance to the preference of the first user based on the predetermined score associated with the second profile, dynamically reordering the set of potential recommendation comprising moving, within the set of profiles displayed on the graphical user interface, the second profile ahead of other profiles having a lower score indicative of less relevance of the preference of the first user; at a second time, determine that the keyword is associated with the second profile, by parsing text of the second profile to search for a plurality of text strings that have the keyword in common with one another; in response to determining that the keyword with the second profile at the second time, associate the second profile to a first text category based at least on identifying one of the plurality of text string sin the second profile, wherein the first category is designated for profiles with any of the plurality of text strings and remove the second profile comprising removing a card associated with the second profile from the stack of cards on the graphical user interface.
39. A computer implemented method for allowing users of a matching system to communicate with one another, comprising: receiving a search request from a first user, the search request indicating a preference of the first user; in response to receiving the search request, generating a set of potential profile recommendations for the first user; receiving a keyword from the first user; determining whether the keyword is associated with a second profile from the set of potential profile recommendations, the second profile being associated with a second user; and determine a score associated with the second profile based at least on the keyword and a similarity between the first profile and the second profile, the determined score indicative of a relevance of the second profile to the preference of the first user; dynamically reorder, for display on a graphical user interface, the set of potential recommendation according to their relevance to the preference of the first user based on the predetermined score associated with the second profile, dynamically reordering the set of potential recommendation comprising moving, within the set of profiles displayed on the graphical user interface, the second profile ahead of other profiles having a lower score indicative of less relevance of the preference of the first user; at a second time, determine that the keyword is associated with the second profile, and in response to determining that the keyword is associated with the second profile at the second time, remove the second profile from the set of potential profile recommendations.
32. A system for allowing users of a matching system to communicate with one another, comprising: an interface operable to: receive a search request from a first user, the search request indicating a preference of the first user; and receive a keyword from the first user; and a processor coupled to the interface and operable to: in response to the search request being received, generate a set of potential profile recommendations for the first user; determine whether the keyword is associated with a second profile from the set of potential profile recommendations, the second profile being associated with a second user; determine a score associated with the second profile based at least on the keyword and a similarity between the first profile and the second profile, the determined score indicative of a relevance of the second profile to the preference of the first user; dynamically reorder, for display on a graphical user interface, the set of potential recommendation according to their relevance to the preference of the first user based on the predetermined score associated with the second profile, dynamically reordering the set of potential recommendation comprising moving, within the set of profiles displayed on the graphical user interface, the second profile ahead of other profiles having a lower score indicative of less relevance of the preference of the first user; at a second time, determine that the keyword is associated with the second profile, and in response to determining that the keyword is associated with the second profile at the second time, remove the second profile
1.
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 25-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
In claims 25-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 25-44 are directed to the abstract idea for allowing two users of a matching system to communicate with one another based on a user’s input, as explained in detail below. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer components which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 25, recites, in part, an article of manufacture comprising instructions to perform a method for allowing two users of a matching system to communicate with one another based on a user’s input comprising the following steps:
receiving a search request from a first user, the search request indicating a preference of the first user, the first user being associated with a first profile [e.g. observing a user request indicating a preference can be performed in the human mind];
in response to receiving the search request, generate a set of potential profile recommendations for the first user [e.g. evaluating a set of profile and generating recommendations in response to the user request can be performed in the human];
receive a keyword from the first user [e.g. observing a keyword from the user can be performed in the human mind];
at a first time, determine whether the keyword is associated with a second profile, the second profile being associated with a second user [e.g. observing a keyword from the user can be performed in the human mind]; and
in response to determining that the keyword is not associated with the second profile at the first time, include the second profile in the set of potential profile recommendations [e.g. evaluating a keyword associated a profile can be performed in the human mind];
[…]
determine a score associated with the second profile based at least on the keyword and a similarity between the first and the second profile, the determined score indicative of a relevance of the second profile to the preference of the first user [e.g., evaluating a score associated with a profile can be performed in the human mind including observation and judgement];
[..]reorder, the set potential recommendation according to the determined score [e.g. evaluating and judging a position of the profile according to their relevance to the preference of the first user based on the determined score associated with the second profile [ e.g., evaluating a score and ranking profiles can be performed in the human mind with pen and paper];
[…] reordering the set of potential recommendations comprising moving, within the set of profiles ahead of other profiles having a lower score indicative of less relevance to the preference of the first user [e.g., ranking profiles based on scores can be performed in the human mind including observation and judgement];
at a second time, determine that the keyword is associated with the second profile by parsing text of the second profile to search for a plurality of text strings that have the keyword in common with one another [e.g. evaluating the keyword associated with the profile can be performed in the human mind]; and
in response to determine that the keyword is associated with the second profile at the second time: associate the second profile to a first text category based at least on identifying one of the pluralities of text strings in the second profile, wherein the first text category is designated for profiles with any of the plurality of text strings [e.g. evaluating a category based on the identified keywords associated with the profiles can be performed in the human mind];
remove the second profile from the set of potential profile recommendations, wherein removing the second profile comprises removing a card associated with the second profile from the stack of cards on the graphical user interface [e.g., determining that the keyword is associated with the profile and deciding to remove the profile can be performed in the human mind including observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion).
These steps describe for matching user profiles are correspond to concepts identified as abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG. These steps fall in one of the abstract idea groups “Mental processes: concepted performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion”. That is, other than reciting a computer processor and a graphical user interface, nothing in the clam elements preclude the step from practically being performed in the mind. The additional feature in the claim “displaying the set of potential recommendations, which displayed as a stack of cards on a graphical user interface of a user device; dynamically reordering the set of potential recommendation and removing a card associated with a profile from a stack of cards” are recited at a high level of generality and add no more to the claimed invention that the component components that perform an abstract idea. The additional feature merely uses a computer/computer component as a tool to display result data after a series of data gathering steps. The output of the result data and data gathering steps are insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional elements (or combination of elements) “reordering” is well-understood, routine or conventional activity (See “Navigating virtual stack of images” in para. [0029] at US 2003/0189602). Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitation as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Therefore, claim 25 is ineligible subject under 35 USC 101.
Claims 26-28 are similar to claim 25 are correspond to concepts identified as abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG. Claims 26-28 are also fall in one of the abstract idea groups “Mental processes: concepted performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion”. Claims 26-28 further describe the keyword is related to an activity, a negative preference of a user, a message, a comment or a user profile. The recited limitations in claims 26-28 are recited at a higher level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer function routinely used in applications. Generic computer component recited as performing generic computer functions are amount to no more than impending the abstract idea with a computerized system. The use of generic computer components to receive a keyword does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, there are no additional element amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitation as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, claim 26-28 are not patent eligible.
Claims 29-30 are similar to claim 25 are correspond to concepts identified as abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG. Claims 29-30 are also fall in one of the abstract idea groups “Mental processes: concepted performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion”. Claims 29-30 recite associate one or more keywords with a category which related to user profiles and determine whether to include a profile in a set of potential profile. The computer/computer components which provide a set of potential profile recommendations are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer and merely use a computer as a tool to provide a result after a series of data gathering steps to perform an abstract idea. The data gathering steps are insignificant extra-solution activity, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitation as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, claims 29-31 are not patent eligible.
Claim 32, recites a system for allowing users of a matching system to communicate with one another comprising:
receiving a search request from a first user, the search request indicating a preference of the first user, the first user being associated with a first profile [e.g. observing a user request indicating a preference can be performed in the human mind];
in response to receiving the search request, generate a set of potential profile recommendations for the first user [e.g. evaluating a set of profile and generating recommendations in response to the user request can be performed in the human];
receive a keyword from the first user [e.g. observing a keyword from the user can be performed in the human mind];
at a first time, determine whether the keyword is associated with a second profile, the second profile being associated with a second user [e.g. observing a keyword from the user can be performed in the human mind]; and
in response to determining that the keyword is not associated with the second profile at the first time, include the second profile in the set of potential profile recommendations [e.g. evaluating a keyword associated a profile can be performed in the human mind];
[…]
determine a score associated with the second profile based at least on the keyword and a similarity between the first and the second profile, the determined score indicative of a relevance of the second profile to the preference of the first user [e.g., evaluating a score associated with a profile can be performed in the human mind including observation and judgement];
[..]reorder, the set potential recommendation according to the determined score [e.g. evaluating and judging a position of the profile according to their relevance to the preference of the first user based on the determined score associated with the second profile [ e.g., evaluating a score and ranking profiles can be performed in the human mind with pen and paper];
[…] reordering the set of potential recommendations comprising moving, within the set of profiles ahead of other profiles having a lower score indicative of less relevance to the preference of the first user [e.g., ranking profiles based on scores can be performed in the human mind including observation and judgement];
at a second time, determine that the keyword is associated with the second profile by parsing text of the second profile to search for a plurality of text strings that have the keyword in common with one another [e.g. evaluating the keyword associated with the profile can be performed in the human mind]; and
in response to determine that the keyword is associated with the second profile at the second time: associate the second profile to a first text category based at least on identifying one of the pluralities of text strings in the second profile, wherein the first text category is designated for profiles with any of the plurality of text strings [e.g. evaluating a category based on the identified keywords associated with the profiles can be performed in the human mind];
remove the second profile from the set of potential profile recommendations, wherein removing the second profile comprises removing a card associated with the second profile from the stack of cards on the graphical user interface [e.g., determining that the keyword is associated with the profile and deciding to remove the profile can be performed in the human mind including observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion).
These steps describe for matching user profiles are correspond to concepts identified as abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG. These steps fall in one of the abstract idea groups “Mental processes: concepted performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion”. That is, other than reciting a computer processor and a graphical user interface, nothing in the clam elements preclude the step from practically being performed in the mind. The additional feature in the claim “displaying the set of potential recommendations, which displayed as a stack of cards on a graphical user interface of a user device; dynamically reordering the set of potential recommendation and removing a card associated with a profile from a stack of cards” are recited at a high level of generality and add no more to the claimed invention that the component components that perform an abstract idea. The additional feature merely uses a computer/computer component as a tool to display result data after a series of data gathering steps. The output of the result data and data gathering steps are insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional elements (or combination of elements) “reordering” is well-understood, routine or conventional activity (See “Navigating virtual stack of images” in para. [0029] at US 2003/0189602). Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitation as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Therefore, claim 32 is ineligible subject under 35 USC 101.
Claims 33-35 are similar to claim 32 are correspond to concepts identified as abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG. Claims 33-35 are also fall in one of the abstract idea groups “Mental processes: concepted performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion”. Claims 33-35 further describe the keyword is related to an activity, a negative preference of a user, a message, a comment or a user profile. The recited limitations in claims 33-35 are recited at a higher level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer function routinely used in applications. Generic computer component recited as performing generic computer functions are amount to no more than impending the abstract idea with a computerized system. The use of generic computer components to receive a keyword does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, there are no additional element amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitation as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, claims 33-35 are not patent eligible.
Claims 36-38 are similar to claim 32 are correspond to concepts identified as abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG. Claims 36-38 are also fall in one of the abstract idea groups “Mental processes: concepted performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion”. Claims 36-38 recite associate one or more keywords with a category which related to user profiles and determine whether to include a profile in a set of potential profile. The computer/computer components which provide a set of potential profile recommendations are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer and merely use a computer as a tool to provide a result after a series of data gathering steps to perform an abstract idea. The data gathering steps are insignificant extra-solution activity, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitation as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, claims 36-38 are not patent eligible.
Claim 39, recites, in part, method for allowing two users of a matching system to communicate with one another based on a user’s input comprising the following steps:
receiving a search request from a first user, the search request indicating a preference of the first user, the first user being associated with a first profile [e.g. observing a user request indicating a preference can be performed in the human mind];
in response to receiving the search request, generate a set of potential profile recommendations for the first user [e.g. evaluating a set of profile and generating recommendations in response to the user request can be performed in the human];
receive a keyword from the first user [e.g. observing a keyword from the user can be performed in the human mind];
at a first time, determine whether the keyword is associated with a second profile, the second profile being associated with a second user [e.g. observing a keyword from the user can be performed in the human mind]; and
in response to determining that the keyword is not associated with the second profile at the first time, include the second profile in the set of potential profile recommendations [e.g. evaluating a keyword associated a profile can be performed in the human mind];
[…]
determine a score associated with the second profile based at least on the keyword and a similarity between the first and the second profile, the determined score indicative of a relevance of the second profile to the preference of the first user [e.g., evaluating a score associated with a profile can be performed in the human mind including observation and judgement];
[..]reorder, the set potential recommendation according to the determined score [e.g. evaluating and judging a position of the profile according to their relevance to the preference of the first user based on the determined score associated with the second profile [ e.g., evaluating a score and ranking profiles can be performed in the human mind with pen and paper];
[…] reordering the set of potential recommendations comprising moving, within the set of profiles ahead of other profiles having a lower score indicative of less relevance to the preference of the first user [e.g., ranking profiles based on scores can be performed in the human mind including observation and judgement];
at a second time, determine that the keyword is associated with the second profile by parsing text of the second profile to search for a plurality of text strings that have the keyword in common with one another [e.g. evaluating the keyword associated with the profile can be performed in the human mind]; and
in response to determine that the keyword is associated with the second profile at the second time: associate the second profile to a first text category based at least on identifying one of the pluralities of text strings in the second profile, wherein the first text category is designated for profiles with any of the plurality of text strings [e.g. evaluating a category based on the identified keywords associated with the profiles can be performed in the human mind];
remove the second profile from the set of potential profile recommendations, wherein removing the second profile comprises removing a card associated with the second profile from the stack of cards on the graphical user interface [e.g., determining that the keyword is associated with the profile and deciding to remove the profile can be performed in the human mind including observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion).
These steps describe for matching user profiles are correspond to concepts identified as abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG. These steps fall in one of the abstract idea groups “Mental processes: concepted performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion”. That is, other than reciting a computer processor and a graphical user interface, nothing in the clam elements preclude the step from practically being performed in the mind. The additional feature in the claim “displaying the set of potential recommendations, which displayed as a stack of cards on a graphical user interface of a user device; dynamically reordering the set of potential recommendation and removing a card associated with a profile from a stack of cards” are recited at a high level of generality and add no more to the claimed invention that the component components that perform an abstract idea. The additional feature merely uses a computer/computer component as a tool to display result data after a series of data gathering steps. The output of the result data and data gathering steps are insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional elements (or combination of elements) “reordering” is well-understood, routine or conventional activity (See “Navigating virtual stack of images” in para. [0029] at US 2003/0189602). Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitation as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Therefore, claim 39 is ineligible subject under 35 USC 101.
Claims 40-42 are similar to claim 39 are correspond to concepts identified as abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG. Claims 40-42 are also fall in one of the abstract idea groups “Mental processes: concepted performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion”. Claims 40-42 further describe the keyword is related to an activity, a negative preference of a user, a message, a comment or a user profile. The recited limitations in claims 40-42 are recited at a higher level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer function routinely used in applications. Generic computer component recited as performing generic computer functions are amount to no more than impending the abstract idea with a computerized system. The use of generic computer components to receive a keyword does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, there are no additional element amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitation as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, claims 40-42 are not patent eligible.
Claims 43 and 44 are similar to claim 39 are correspond to concepts identified as abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG. Claims 43 and 44 are also fall in one of the abstract idea groups “Mental processes: concepted performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion”. Claims 43 and 44 recite associate one or more keywords with a category which related to user profiles and determine whether to include a profile in a set of potential profile. The computer/computer component which provides a set of potential profile recommendations are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer and merely use a computer as a tool to provide a result after a series of data gathering steps to perform an abstract idea. The data gathering steps are insignificant extra-solution activity, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitation as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, claims 43 and 44 are not patent eligible.
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 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.
Claims 25-29, 31-36 and 38-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Hanan (US 2005/0131716 A1) and in view of Mazniker (US Patent 8,843,491 B1) and further in view of Rapaport (US 2012/0290950 A1).
Referring to claims 25, 32 and 39, Hanan discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium (See para. [0019] and Figure 1, a network of data processing system 100 contains a network 102, which is a medium used to provide communications between various devices and computers connected together within network data processing system 100) comprising instructions that, when executed by a processor (See para. [0023] and para. [0028] and Figures 2 and 3, the data processing includes a plurality of processors), are configured to perform a method for allowing two users of a matching system to communicate with one another (See para. [0002], para. [0004], para. [0008], performing a method of computer dating services including classifying users and quickly screening candidates for potential partner matches), the method comprising the following steps:
receive a search request from a first user, the search request indicating a preference of the first user (See para. [0033] and Figure 4, receiving a request from a user indicating he or she is seeking a potential life partner or meeting someone to date, the request includes inputting background information, personality information and preferences regarding potential partners), the first user being associated with a first profile (See para. [0033] and Figure 4, each user is associated with a user profile including personal background, personality and preference information);
in response to receiving the search request, generate a set of potential profile recommendations for the first user (See para. [0042] and Figure 4, the system applies filters to both of the user profile and profiles of potential partners, e.g., the filters quickly eliminate candidates in the database who are poor matches for the user based on user preference);
receive a keyword from the first user (See para. [0043] and Figure 4, the user adds filters and/or custom filters by specifying types of people he or she does not want to meet, for example, the user may specify that she is not interested in smokers or does not want to go out with lawyers or musicians);
at a first time, determine whether the keyword is associated with a second profile, the second profile associated with a second user (See para. [0041], para. [0042] and Figure 4, the system determines whether the input keyword is associated with a profile(s) in order to determine potential partners that are already stored in a database);
in response to determining that the keyword is not associated with a second profile at the first, include the second profile in the set of potential profile recommendations (See para. [0035], para. [0036], para. [0042]- para. [0044], para. [0047]-para. [0051], the user inputs keywords [e.g., perceived attractiveness, physical characteristics] that he/she would like to meet. The user can also add keywords or custom filters by specifying types of people he or she does not want to meet [e.g., smokers, lawyers, musicians or etc.], for instance, the system does not eliminate the second profile as a potential match for the first person since the determined keyword “smoker” is not associated with the second profile based on a simply binary True/False scoring and linear scoring, the second profile is still within the other’s preference range);
determining a score associated with the second profile at least on the keyword (See para. [0045]-para. [0048], para. [0057] and Figures 4 and 6, determining simple binary True/False scoring to determine if a characteristic violates the filter [e.g., keyword]) and a similarity between the first profile and second profile (See para. [0057], para. [0058] and Figure 4, 7, calculating system level weights by establishing importance each trait to a cross section of potential users [e.g. the first and second profiles]), the determining score indicative of a relevance of the second profile to the preference of the first user (See para. [0058]-para. [0063] and Figures 4, 7, calculating the True Compatibility Index TCI score using system level weights and personal data scores, which compare personal information to user preferences);
[…dynamically reorder on the graphical user interface], the set of potential recommendations according to their preference to the preference of the first user based on the determined score associated with the second profile (See para. [0010], move a rank position relative to each target profile passes through all of the combability index scores, also note in para. [0041], para. [0057], para. [0066], generating a match profile that ranks the second profile or other targets according to how well they match the first user, all target candidates in the database that are not excluded during filter are included in the ranked profile) […];
at a second time, determine that the keyword is associated with the second profile (See para. [0035], para. [0036], para. [0042]-para. [0044], para. [0047]-para. [0051], para. [0067], the second profile user updates his/her profile [e.g., updating his/her profile from a non-smoker to a smoker] to find different matches) by parsing text of the second profile to search for a plurality of text strings that have the keywords in common with one another (See para. [0035], para. [0036], para. [0042]-para. [0044], para. [0047]-para. [0051], para. [0067], the system reads and detects that the keyword “smoker” is associated with the second profile now); and in response to determine that the keyword is associated with the second profile at the second time (See para. [0035], para. [0036], para. [0042]-para. [0044], para. [0047]-para. [0051], para. [0067] and Figures 4, 5, the system detects the determined keyword “smoker” is associated with the second profile based on a simply binary True/False scoring and linear scoring); associate the second profiles to a first text category based at least on identifying one of the pluralities of text strings in the second profiles (See para. [0035], para. [0036], para. [0042]-para. [0044], para. [0047]-para. [0051], para. [0067], the system associates the keyword” smoker” to “Smoking habits:” with respect to socio-demographic characteristics), wherein the first text category is designated for profiles with any of the plurality of text strings and remove the second profile from the set of potential profile recommendations (See para. [0035], para. [0036], para. [0042]-para. [0044], para. [0047]-para. [0051], para. [0067] and Figures 4, 5, the system eliminates the second profile as a potential match for the first person when the determined keyword “smoker” is associated with the second profile based on a simply binary True/False scoring and linear scoring, the second profile is not within the first’s preference range and is filtered out).
Hanan does not explicitly disclose dynamically reorder, for display on a graphical user interface, a set of potential recommendations comprising moving, within the set of potential recommendations displayed on the graphical user interface, the second items ahead of other items having a lower score indicate of less relevance to the preference of the first user; wherein the set of potential recommendations are displayed as a stack of cards on the graphical user interface and removing a card from the stack of cards on the graphical user interface.
Mazniker discloses dynamically reorder, for display on a graphical user interface, a set of potential recommendations comprising moving, within the set of items displayed on the graphical user interface, the second items ahead of other objects or items having a lower score indicate of less relevance to the preference of the first user (See col 16, lines 1-45 and Figure 6B, Figure 6B depicts example ranking and ordering of the example items of FIG. 6A in a stream page for a second user [e.g., the second user 506], each item 600', 602', 604', 606', 608', 610' includes the digital content data [P.sub.1, P.sub.2, P.sub.3, P.sub.4, P.sub.5, P.sub.6, respectively], item score [S.sub.1B, S.sub.2B, S.sub.3B, S.sub.4B, S.sub.5B, S.sub.6B, respectively] and timestamp [t.sub.1, t.sub.2, t.sub.3, t.sub.4, t.sub.5, t.sub.6, respectively], the item scores are specific to the second user [e.g., User B]; the grouped items 654 are ranked based on item score within the groups to provide ranked items 660. In the depicted example, S.sub.5B is greater than S.sub.2B. Consequently, item 608' is ranked higher than item 602' even though t.sub.2 is more recent than t.sub.5. In the depicted example, S.sub.6B is greater than S.sub.1B which is greater than S.sub.4B. Consequently, item 610' is ranked higher than item 600' and item 606' even though t.sub.1 is more recent than t.sub.6 and t.sub.4 is more recent than t.sub.6. Accordingly, when the second user accesses the stream page the items will be displayed in the following order from top to bottom: item 608, item 602, item 610, item 600 and item 606. This order is specific to the second user).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the computer art to modify the graphical user interface of the Hanan’s system to move second items ahead of other objects or items having a lower score indicate of less relevance to the preference of the first user, as taught by Mazniker, in order to provide real-time ranking and ordering of items that are relevant to a user (See Mazniker, col 1, lines 15-25 and col 6, lines 45-60). In addition, both of the references (Mazniker and Hanan) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as generating matching items to user. This close relation between both of the references highly suggests an expectation of success.
Hanan and Mazniker do not explicitly disclose displaying a set of potential recommendations are displayed as a stack of cards on the graphical user interface and removing a card from the stack of cards on the graphical user interface.
Rapaport discloses displaying a set of potential recommendations are displayed as a stack of cards on the graphical user interface (See para. [0239], displaying a set of recommendations as stacks of cards) and removing a card from the stack of cards on the graphical user interface (See para. [0239], filtering the top recommendation that related to popular-attention drawing from the stacks of cards).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the computer art to modify the graphical user interface of the Hanan’s system to display recommendations as stack of cards, as taught by Rapaport, since displaying recommendations or objects in a stack data structure is a convenient way of explaining a sorted array of social entities whose positional placement is based on the user’s current valuation of the recommendations or objects (See Rapaport, para. [0115]). In addition, all of the references (Rapaport, Mazniker and Hanan) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as generating matching items to user. This close relation between all of the references highly suggests an expectation of success.
As to claims 26, 33 and 40, Hanan discloses wherein the keyword is related to an activity (See para. [0039] and Figure 5, step 503, input information regarding preferred hobbies and activities).
As to claims 27, 34 and 41, Hanan discloses wherein the keyword reflects a negative preference of the first user (See para. [0039] and Figure 5, step 503, input information can be grouped as categories and broken down into subcategories. For example, communication style might by further broken down to include comfort with vulnerability, need for intimacy, open-mindedness, and ability to communication (i.e. skills). As another example, the category of personal characteristics may be further divided into readiness to commit, self-image, conscientiousness, integrity, adventurousness, rigidity, and dominance (i.e. need for control), the personal characteristics of dominance can be a negative preference of a user).
As to claims 28, 35 and 42, Hanan discloses wherein the keyword is indicated in one or more of a message, a comment, or the second profile associated with the second user (See para. [0058] and Figure 7, the input information is indicated in a profile associated with a user).
As to claims 29, 36 and 43, Hanan discloses analyze a first profile to identify a first category by searching for one or more keywords (See para. [0058] and Figure 7, searching the input information in a profile to identify a first category, e.g., the socio-demographic, interests/activities), wherein the one or more keywords are associated with the first category (See para. [0058] and Figure 7, the input information are associated with socio-demographic, interests/activities); associate the first profile with the first profile; determining that a fourth profile is not associate with the first category, the fourth profile being associated with a fourth user (See para. [0035], para. [0036], para. [0042]-para. [0044], para. [0047]-para. [0051], para. [0067], the system associates the keyword” smoker” to “Smoking habits:” with respect to socio-demographic characteristics); and remove the fourth profile from the set of potential profile recommendations (See para. [0043] and para. [0044] and Figure 4, the system filters out anyone or profile who are not for the target’s preferred activities/interests).
As to claim 31, Hanah in view of Mazniker discloses receiving from the first user an indication of interest in a third user, in response to receiving the indication, automatically display on the graphical user interface, in place of the third profile of the third user (See Hanah, para. [0066], the first user decides that a user is good fit and initiates contact with that user, See Mazniker, col 16, lines 1-45 and Figure 6B for moving the third item ahead of other items).
Hanah in view of Mazniker does not explicitly disclose receiving an indication of interest being associated with a swiping gesture; and in response to receiving the indication, automatically displaying on the graphical user interface, another item from the stack of cards.
Rapport discloses receiving an indication of interest being associated with a swiping gesture; and in response to receiving the indication, automatically displaying on the graphical user interface, another item from the stack of cards (See para. [0186] and para. [0239], swipe to appreciate object to topic relations and/or object to person relations and the system modifies the focused item displayed in the stack).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the computer art to modify the graphical user interface of the Hanan’s system to display recommendations as stack of cards, as taught by Rapaport, since displaying recommendations or objects in a stack data structure is a convenient way of explaining a sorted array of social entities whose positional placement is based on the user’s current valuation of the recommendations or objects (See Rapaport, para. [0115]). In addition, all of the references (Rapaport, Mazniker and Hanan) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as generating matching items to user. This close relation between all of the references highly suggests an expectation of success.
As to claim 38, Hanah discloses determine whether the keyword is associated with a sixth profile, the sixth profile being associated with a sixth user; and in response to determining that the keyword is associated with the sixth profile, remove the sixth profile from the set of potential profile recommendations (See para. [0043] and para. [0044] and Figure 4, the system filters out anyone or profile who are smokers, the system filters target candidates based on personal traits and user’s stated preferences from a pool of targets).
Claims 30, 37 and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanan (US 2005/0131716 A1) in view of Mazniker (US Patent 8,843,491 B1) and Rapaport (US 2012/0290950 A1) and further in view of Rait (US 2013/0290414 A1).
As to claims 30, 37 and 44, Hanan discloses compare each of a first list of keywords found in a first profile with each of a second list of keywords found in a fifth profile, the fifth profile being associated with a fifth user, determine a number of matching keywords that are in common between the first profile and the fifth profile; (See para [0041], para. [0059] and para. [0062] and para. [0074] and Figures 6 and 7, the system generates raw scores for each compared variable stored in the user profiles and stores a total compatibility score [e.g., points are added or subtracted] between a user and each target) and determine that a fifth profile in the set of potential profile recommendations to recommend to the first user is proportional to the number of matching keywords (See para. [0043] and para. [0044], para. [0062] and para. [0074] and Figures 4 and 6, the system assigns the user and target as possible match).
Rait also discloses determine a number of matching keywords that are in common between the first profile and the fifth profile; and determine that a likelihood of inclusion of the fifth profile in the set of potential profile recommendations to recommend to the first user is proportional to the number of matching keywords (See para. [0039], the system generates a score for common characteristics equals or exceeds a threshold and suggests a user to a group of connections in a social networking system).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the computer art to modify the profiles of the Hanan’s system to associate profiles with common characteristic scores, as taught by Rait, in order to match user with other users with similar characteristics efficiently (See Rait, para. [0001]-para. [0002]). In addition, all of the references (Mazniker, Rapaport, Rait and Hanan) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as matching relevant items to user. This close relation between all of the references highly suggests an expectation of success.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUK TING CHOI whose telephone number is (571)270-1637. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm.
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, AMY NG can be reached at 5712701698. 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.
/YUK TING CHOI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2164