DETAILED ACTION
The following FINAL Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Response filed on 12/29/2025.
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 . 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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-12 were previously pending and subject to a non-final Office Action mailed 07/24/2025. Claims 1 and 4-12 were amended. Claims 1-12 are currently pending and are subject to the final Office Action below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/29/2025 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98, and MPEP 609 and was considered by the Examiner.
Response to Arguments
Objections
Applicant has amended Claim 1 as Examiner suggested. Accordingly, the objection to Claims 1-10 have been rendered moot and thus, have been withdrawn.
35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments, see page 5, filed 12/29/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of Claims 1-12 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims recite computer-implemented steps and many limitations of operation, processing, and human interaction with a digital system. Examiner respectfully disagrees that such features render the claims eligible.
MPEP2106.04(a)(2)(II) states “Finally, the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping.”
Applicant’s claims may include “many limitations of operation, processing, and human interaction with a digital system” but such limitations are still directed to the abstract idea of organizing human activity.
Applicant’s claims may be similar to issued claims; however, under consideration of Applicant’s claims as a whole, Applicant’s claims are still directed to social activities between a particular user and other users who have similar affinities on a social media site. Additionally, as the particular user may use a control to limit/expand their interaction with other users on the social media site to create a selected pool of users, the claimed invention is similar to “filtering content” an example of managing personal behavior.
Additionally, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “create” and “identify” limitations fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion.
Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of Claims 1-12 is maintained.
35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-6, filed 12/29/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the new features of a plurality of categories and creating a selected pool are not taught by the cited references. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Spiegel teaches the plurality of categories in para. 33-34 where greater weight is given to specific types or categories of events that tend to strongly reflect the interests of the user. The “plurality of categories” may be book purchases or music purchases, where the purchases may be broken down into further categories like purchase of a hobby book versus purchase of a fiction book. See also para. 55-60 where the items and number of purchases of the item are counted and then, weight is given to purchases of items that tend to strongly reflect the interests and traits of the purchasers.
The combination of Spiegel and Huang teaches the limitation of “accepting a signal… create a selected pool of a plurality of the other users” as Spiegel teaches a list of people with similar interests and the user may sort the list, generate another pool of users through “more people like this”, and contact the users and Huang teaches limiting or expanding the list of users/the selected pool. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection is maintained.
Regarding the “filtering” limitations in the dependent claims, Examiner relies upon new reference Kochura to teach the features.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-10 are directed to a method (i.e., a process) and Claims 11-12 are directed to an apparatus/non-transient computer readable medium (i.e., a machine). Therefore, the claims all fall within the one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A - Prong 1:
Independent Claim 1, Claim 11, and Claim 12 recite:
…create a dataset of a plurality of tag:value pairs that represent an affinity based on weightings of the tags in a plurality of categories for the user;
… identify a plurality of other datasets corresponding to other users' affinities for tags in at least a portion of the particular categories;
displaying a control to the particular user …; and
accepting a signal in response to the user's use of the control to limit or expand the user's interaction with other users on the social media site according to a comparison of the user's dataset affinity to the other users' dataset affinities to create a selected pool of a plurality of the other users
Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity
The limitations stated above are processes that under broadest reasonable interpretation covers “certain methods of organizing human activity” (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people). Specifically, social activities between a particular user and other users who have similar affinities on a social media site. Additionally, as the particular user may use a control to limit/expand their interaction with other users on the social media site and create a selected pool of users, the claimed invention is similar to “filtering content” an example of managing personal behavior. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Mental Processes
Additionally, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “create” and “identify” fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Specifically, “create” encompasses a user creating tag value pairs such as movies: 10, books: 1, music: 1, weighting the tags so that movies are weighted more heavily given the particular user frequently watches movies, and determining that the particular user has an affinity for movies based on the weighting. “Identify” encompasses the user determining 2 other users who also have an affinity for movies given their dataset indicates they frequently watch movies as well. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The independent claims recite the additional elements of one or more digital processors, an interface on a display screen, a digital computing system including a processor, a non-transient computer readable medium, and a digital processor which are recited at a high-level of generality (generic computer/functions) such that when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
“Accepting signals from a user input device” may be considered as insignificant extra-solution activity specifically pre-solution data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Additionally, the interface on a display screen may be considered as generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use as the limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (interface displayed to the user) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Thus, the claim as a whole, looking at additional elements individually and in combination, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as the additional elements are mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components, extra-solution activity, or field of use which does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of one or more digital processors, an interface on a display screen, a digital computing system including a processor, a non-transient computer readable medium, and a digital processor to perform the steps/functions recited above amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
“Accepting signals from a user input device” may be considered as insignificant extra-solution activity specifically pre-solution data gathering and “accepting” is similar to “Receiving or transmitting data over a network” which the courts have recognized as a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when claimed as insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP2106.05(d)(II).
Again, the interface on a display screen may be considered as generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use as the limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (interface displayed to the user) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims.
None of the steps of Claim 1, Claim 11, and Claim 12 when evaluated individually or as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements are merely used to perform the limitations directed to the abstract idea, amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer, extra-solution activity, or field of use, thus, the analysis does not change when considered as an ordered combination. Thus, the additional elements do not meaningfully limit the claim. Accordingly, Claim 1, Claim 11, and Claim 12 are ineligible.
Dependent Claim 2 specifies further that the control adjusts a threshold requirement for determining whether a sufficient affinity exists or not. The limitations of Claim 2 are further directed towards organizing human activity as the particular user may adjust the threshold requirement for determining whether a sufficient affinity exists between themselves and other users.
Dependent Claim 3 specifies further that the interface displays the approximate number of other user’s datasets that meet the threshold requirement and Claims 4-7 specifies further filtering online content that is not from sources in the pool including removing, obscuring, or flagging the online content. Such limitations are further directed towards organizing human activity as the particular user may view the number of other users who have sufficient affinity with the particular user and the particular user may view online content after filtering the content in different ways.
Dependent Claim 8-10 specifies further using a different dataset in place of the user’s dataset affinity where the different dataset is a dataset of a different user and further notifying the user of matchings of tag:value pairs in the different user dataset.
The limitations of Claims 8-10 are further directed towards organizing human activity as the preferences of another user may be used to identify other users who have similar affinities and the user may be notified of similar tag:value pairs/affinities to the “another user”. “Accepting signals from the user input device” is, like noted previously, insignificant extra solution activity of collecting user input. Again, the limitation is similar to “Receiving or transmitting data over a network” which the courts have recognized as a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when claimed as insignificant extra-solution activity.
Thus, nothing in dependent claims 2-10 adds additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 1-12 are ineligible.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spiegel (US 2012/0047150) in view of Huang et al. (US2023/0023973).
As per independent Claim 1, Claim 11, and Claim 12,
Spiegel teaches a method for limiting a user's interactions with other users on a social media site, the method comprising:/ An apparatus for limiting a user's interactions with other users on a social media site, the apparatus including: a digital computing system including a processor and stored instructions executable by the processor for: /A non-transient computer-readable medium including instructions executable by a digital processor for limiting a user's interactions with other users on a social media site, the instructions executable by the processor for: (figure 1 and para. 19-20 system; para. 88-90)
accepting signals from a user device to create a dataset of a plurality of tag:value pairs that represent an affinity based on weightings of the tags in a plurality of categories for the user (figure 1 and para. 20-21 users browse an electronic catalog of items available for purchase/rental such as books, movies, videos, tickets, etc.; para. 22-25 as users browse on their client devices, events may be recorded; para. 27 user answers targeted questions and para. 28 user explicitly affiliate themselves with specific user groups or communities; Para. 31-32 the matching service analyzes collected user data to calculate degrees of similarity between specific pairs of users; para. 33-34 greater weight is given to specific types or categories of events that tend to strongly reflect the interests of the users; Para. 53-54 where the matching service calculates similarity metrics to reflect the degree to which two users are similar; para. 55-60 where the items and number of purchases of the item are counted and then, weight is given to purchases of items that tend to strongly reflect the interests and traits of the purchasers; see also para. 61-67 for more details on normalized score calculation)
using one or more digital processors to identify a plurality of other datasets corresponding to other users' affinities for tags in at least a portion of the particular categories (para. 53-60 as noted previously where user B’s purchases are identified and compared to user A’s purchases; para. 35 the results are used to select users to be recommended to other users and para. 36 matching individual users to specific groups of users where members share a common attribute; para. 40 user starts a search for other people and para. 43 the matching service considers each user’s purchases/rentals, viewing activities, etc.; para. 44 common interests and behaviors between the searcher and the located user such as similar preferences for books, book genres, authors, etc.; see also figure 3A-3B and para. 48-51 and figure 5 and para. 84-87 for the community search embodiment)
displaying a control to the particular user in an interface on a display screen (figure 4 and para. 80-82 the matching services calculates scores for each user and para. 83 the users whose scores exceed a threshold may be displayed to the user; figure 2B and para. 42-47 where the “people-search results” page displays multiple controls such as “view profile”, “why selected?”, “contact this person”, etc.)
accepting a signal in response to the user's use of the control to sort the user's interaction with other users on the social media site according to a comparison of the user's dataset affinity to the other users' dataset affinities to create a selected pool of a plurality of the other users (Figure 2B and para. 46-47 “more people like this” returns a list of people who are similar and a drop down box for sorting the search results by criteria such as best overall match, closest in location, most similar preferences, etc.; para. 83 where other users are recommended to the user and the user may sort the results based on a criterion and the selection of such a criterion causes the matching service to reorder the list of users for display; Figure 2B and para. 44-45 “contact this person” can be selected by the searcher to send a message to the located user)
Examiner noting that Spiegel teaches the sorting of users based on criteria and the selection of the criteria causes the list of users to be reordered for display. Thus, the number of users stays the same.
Spiegel does not teach, but Huang teaches:
accepting a signal in response to the user's use of the control to limit or expand the user's interaction with other users on the social media site to create a selected pool of a plurality of the other users (para. 18 changing the size of a group of users from an initial level to a different level where a user is included in a group of users based on weights included in a user profile associated with the user; para. 21 the size of the group can be expanded or contracted according to the provider’s preference; para. 25-26 initial threshold or first level; para. 27-30 change the size of the group to a second level; figure 2 and para. 68-71 where in para. 68 the slider component 234 may be used by the user to change the size of the group of second users; see also figure 5 and para. 80)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Spiegel invention with Huang with the motivation of increasing efficiency by allowing the user to control the amount of matching users in the search results.
See para. 18-21 “selecting an appropriate group of users that may be interested in a media item…can be overwhelming for a provider of the media item…the media item provider may want to expand the group of users to include users that were not originally considered as belonging to the first category but may still be interested in media items related to the first category…existing mechanisms…often result in selecting an overly broad group of users or alternatively not reaching enough users”.
As per dependent Claim 2,
Spiegel/Huang teaches the method of claim 1.
Spiegel teaches:
a threshold requirement for determining whether a sufficient affinity exists or not (figure 4 and para. 80-82 the matching services calculates similarity scores for each user and para. 83 the users whose similarity scores exceed a threshold may be displayed to the user; figure 2B and para. 42-47 where the “people-search results” page displays multiple controls such as “view profile”, “why selected?”, “contact this person”, and a drop down box for sorting the search results by criteria such as best overall match, closest in location, most similar preferences, etc.; para. 83 where other users are recommended to the user and the user may sort the results based on a criterion and the selection of such a criterion causes the matching service to reorder the list of users for display)
Spiegel does not teach, but Huang teaches:
wherein the control adjusts a threshold requirement (para. 18 changing the size of a group of users from an initial level to a different level where a user is included in a group of users based on weights included in a user profile associated with the user; para. 21 the size of the group can be expanded or contracted according to the provider’s preference; para. 25-26 initial threshold or first level; para. 27-30 change the size of the group to a second level/threshold; figure 2 and para. 68-71 where in para. 68 the slider component 234 may be used by the user to change the size of the group of second users; see also figure 5 and para. 80; para. 52-54 and 57-60 where the size of the group of users may vary and the first threshold is set to 0.9 and the second threshold is set to 0.8)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Spiegel invention with Huang with the motivation of increasing efficiency by allowing the user to control the amount of matching users in the search results.
See para. 18-21 “selecting an appropriate group of users that may be interested in a media item…can be overwhelming for a provider of the media item…the media item provider may want to expand the group of users to include users that were not originally considered as belonging to the first category but may still be interested in media items related to the first category…existing mechanisms…often result in selecting an overly broad group of users or alternatively not reaching enough users”.
As per dependent Claim 3,
Spiegel/Huang teaches the method of claim 2.
Spiegel suggests wherein the interface displays the approximate number of other users' datasets that meet the threshold requirement (Figure 2B “People Search Results (1-10 of 220)”).
Spiegel doesn’t explicitly teach that after the user adjusts the threshold requirement, the interface displays the number of other users.
Huang teaches:
wherein the interface displays the approximate number of other users' datasets that meet the threshold requirement (Figure 2 and para. 70 indication 236 displays the number of second users to be included in the group of second users as a result of changing the size of the group; figure 5 and para. 80-81 block 540 present in the UI an indication of an estimated change in the size of the group)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Spiegel invention with Huang with the motivation of increasing efficiency or user convenience by allowing the user to view the amount of matching users in the search results. See para. 18-21 of Huang.
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spiegel (US 2012/0047150) in view of Huang et al. (US2023/0023973) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Kochura et al. (US2017/0351961).
As per dependent Claim 4,
Spiegel/Huang teaches the method of claim 1.
Spiegel/Huang does not teach, but Kochura teaches:
filtering online content that is not from sources in the pool (figure 4 and para. 35-46 where in para. 35-38 where users and other individuals are part of an online group or social cluster and para. 43 where the tool adjusts the appropriateness level based on social cluster feedback; figure 5 and para. 47 where before presenting information to a second user, the tool determines an appropriateness level for the information based on social media data, para. 48 the first user indicated a negative sentiment of a content (dislike, unfollow, unfriend, etc.), which impacts the appropriateness level, para. 49 first and second user belong to the same group and the tool may consider a number of positive/negative ratings from the social network contacts, para. 50 if it is high appropriateness, the tool may not interfere with the presentation of content, if it is medium, the tool may give a warning, and if it is low, the tool may filter the content; figure 1 and para. 15-16 where Shelly belongs to a group of employees at a school and Principal James Jones is leader of the group)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Spiegel invention with Kochura with the motivation of increasing user convenience by filtering out inappropriate content.
See para. 2 “People who navigate networks for information, such as individuals who search the Internet, often encounter information that they consider inappropriate. Unfortunately, those people have little protection against encountering such information” and para. 13 “As mentioned previously, individuals are often subjected to inappropriate information, such when searching the Internet, when on social media outlets, and so forth. Some embodiments of the inventive subject matter include a tool configured to determine whether information would be appropriate to present to a user. For instance, the tool can predict a level of emotional reaction that the information may evoke in the user. The tool can block presentation of the information or provide a warning about the information if the information is deemed inappropriate or possibly inappropriate.”
As per dependent Claim 5,
Spiegel/Huang/Kochura teaches the method of claim 4.
Spiegel/Huang does not teach, but Kochura teaches:
wherein filtering includes: removing the online content (para. 13 the tool can block presentation of the information; para. 32 and 34 the tool can block the selected information if it has a high degree of inappropriateness, the user may be warned by a graphical indicator as the tool can block some images or remove certain text while providing access to some of the selected information; para. 50 if it is high appropriateness, the tool may not interfere with the presentation of content, if it is medium, the tool may give a warning, and if it is low, the tool may filter the content)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Spiegel invention with Kochura with the motivation of increasing user convenience by filtering out inappropriate content. See para. 2 and para. 13.
As per dependent Claim 6,
Spiegel/Huang/Kochura teaches the method of claim 4.
Spiegel/Huang does not teach, but Kochura teaches:
wherein filtering includes: obscuring the online content (para. 13 the tool can block presentation of the information; para. 32 and 34 the tool can block the selected information if it has a high degree of inappropriateness, the user may be warned by a graphical indicator as the tool can block some images or remove certain text while providing access to some of the selected information; para. 50 if it is high appropriateness, the tool may not interfere with the presentation of content, if it is medium, the tool may give a warning, and if it is low, the tool may filter the content)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Spiegel invention with Kochura with the motivation of increasing user convenience by filtering out inappropriate content. See para. 2 and para. 13.
As per dependent Claim 7,
Spiegel/Huang/Kochura teaches the method of claim 4.
Spiegel/Huang does not teach, but Kochura teaches:
wherein filtering includes: flagging the online content (para. 13 the tool can block presentation of the information; para. 32 and 34 the tool can block the selected information if it has a high degree of inappropriateness, the user may be warned by a graphical indicator as the tool can block some images or remove certain text while providing access to some of the selected information; para. 50 if it is high appropriateness, the tool may not interfere with the presentation of content, if it is medium, the tool may give a warning, and if it is low, the tool may filter the content)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Spiegel invention with Kochura with the motivation of increasing user convenience by filtering out inappropriate content. See para. 2 and para. 13.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spiegel (US 2012/0047150) in view of Huang et al. (US2023/0023973) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Barrow (US2013/0091130).
As per dependent Claim 8,
Spiegel/Huang teaches the method of claim 1.
Spiegel/Huang does not teach, but Barrow teaches:
accepting signals from the user device to use a different dataset in place of the user’s dataset affinity (para. 35-37 preference shields filter out any content that does not include attributes corresponding to the user preferences; para. 41 the second user may add the user preferences of the first user to the preference shield of the second user; para. 42 users may utilize the preference shield of their favorite celebrity; para. 43 user may utilize brand shields; para. 75-77 where end users share preferences between one another and a user may extend their preference shield by adding on preferences from the preference shields of other end users)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Spiegel invention with Barrow with the motivation of increasing convenience for the user who may customize their preferences in order to obtain relevant and personalized search results. See Para. 19 “the systems and methods disclosed herein may utilize preference shields as data filters to substantially ameliorate the aforementioned drawbacks and obtain and provide users with relevant and personalized search results. In some embodiments, the systems and methods may allow users to create preference shields that include information indicative of the preferences of the users. The preference shields may be applied to search queries received from a user to provide the user with only search results that are personalized relative to the preferences of the user. According to additional embodiments, some of the systems and methods may allow providers (e.g., merchants) to align their inventory and/or advertisements in accordance with the information included in the preference shields of customers”.
As per dependent Claim 9,
Spiegel/Huang/Barrow teaches the method of claim 8.
Spiegel/Huang does not teach, but Barrow teaches:
wherein the different dataset is a dataset of a different user (para. 35-37 preference shields filter out any content that does not include attributes corresponding to the user preferences; para. 41 the second user may add the user preferences of the first user to the preference shield of the second user; para. 42 users may utilize the preference shield of their favorite celebrity; para. 43 user may utilize brand shields; para. 75-77 where end users share preferences between one another and a user may extend their preference shield by adding on preferences from the preference shields of other end users)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Spiegel invention with Barrow with the motivation of increasing convenience for the user who may customize their preferences in order to obtain relevant and personalized search results. See Para. 19.
As per dependent Claim 10,
Spiegel/Huang teaches the method of claim 9.
Spiegel/Huang does not teach, but Barrow teaches:
notifying the user of matchings of tag:value pairs in the different user dataset (para. 79-80 system determines that users with similar preference shield configurations like a particular product, service, or preference shield extension, so the system may suggest certain preference shield extensions – for example, “15% of the users with similar preferences have done this. Import/merge?”; para. 86-88 shield sharing between two or more mobile devices to create a common denominator shield (shield having combined preferences of the end users); para. 92 portals to create, manage, and explore preference shields where the user may select, add, modify, inspect, and/or explore preference shields – “For example, the portal may provide the end user with comparative data such as a percentage of additional end users with the same preference. Other data may include demographic data (e.g., the age or sex of other end users with the same preference). The portal may also provide “trending” or active preferences in an age category, or active preferences of end users proximate the consumer, or comparisons with other suggested preference shields (e.g., celebrity shields), and so forth. The consumer portal may also allow end users to inspect preference shield recommendations generated by the filtering application”; see also Claims 8-9 suggest a preference shield zone for incorporation into a preference shield by comparing user preference data in the preference shield to user preference data in the preference shields included in the database; see also para. 74-75 and para. 34, 38-41)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Spiegel invention with Barrow with the motivation of increasing convenience for the user who may customize their preferences in order to obtain relevant and personalized search results. See Para. 19.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Lohani (US2017/0012913) teaches a category affinity index and generating a list of users with category affinity in their profile.
Jackson et al. (US2014/0067967) teaches a user creating groups of users based on a common characteristic.
Malleshaiah et al. (US2011/0173198) teaches determining interest indices between user and other users and displaying friends based on the ranked interest indices.
See also Ball et al. (US2017/0139921), Hull et al. (US7707122), Lam et al. (US7689452), and Mosthaf (US10068257)
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 Lisa Ma whose telephone number is (571)272-2495. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 7 AM - 5 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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571)272-5587. 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.
/L.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/SHANNON S CAMPBELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628