DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the application. Claims 1-7 are withdrawn. Claims. 8-20 have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits. The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 12/19/2024, 12/31/2024 and 6/27/2025 have been acknowledged.
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-7, drawn to social networking, classified in G06Q 50/01.
II. Claims 8-20, drawn to using location information, classified in G06Q 20/4015.
The inventions are distinct, each from the other because of the following reasons:
Inventions I and II are related as subcombinations disclosed as usable together in a single combination. The subcombinations are distinct if they do not overlap in scope and are not obvious variants, and if it is shown that at least one subcombination is separately usable. In the instant case, subcombination I has separate utility such as a performance tracking module configured to track whether a performance activity has been completed, wherein the performance activity comprises a social connection between a first owner of the first product and a second owner of the second product, which is not required for subcombination II. Subcombination II has a separate utility such as determining, whether a first location data and a second location data are within a first threshold geographical proximity to one another, which is not required for subcombination I. See MPEP § 806.05(d).
The examiner has required restriction between subcombinations usable together. Where applicant elects a subcombination and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a continuation or divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all these inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
(a) the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries);
(b) the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention.
(c) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
(d) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their divergent subject matter.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Attorney of record, Kristen Strickland, on July 9, 2025, a provisional election without traverse was made to prosecute the invention of Group 2, claims 8-20. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 1-7 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
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 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Specifically, claims 8-20 are directed toward at least one judicial exception without significantly more. In accordance with MPEP 2106, the rationale for this determination is explained below:
Representative claim 8 is directed towards a method, claim 20 is directed towards a system, which are statutory categories of invention.
Although, claim 8 is directed toward a statutory category of invention, the claim however, is directed towards an abstract idea. The limitations that recite the abstract ideas are:
receiving, first location data from a first user associated with a first owner of a first physical article of a plurality of physical articles; receiving, second location data from a second user associated with a second owner of a second physical article from the plurality of physical articles; determining, whether the first location data and the second location data are within a first threshold geographical proximity to one another; and in response to the first location data and the second location data being within the first threshold geographical proximity to one another, sending, a first notification to the first user and the second user. These limitations, comprise commercial interactions including, marketing or sales activities or behavior; business relations; and managing personal behavior or interactions between people, including following rules or instructions. And are thus, directed towards the abstract grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (see MPEP 2106.04(d)), the additional elements provided by the claim as a whole are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to generally “apply” the abstract by computer components. In particular the claim recites the additional elements of: by a computing device, computing device; by the computing device, computing device; by the computing device; by the computing device, computing device, computing device, which merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Simply implementing the abstract idea by generic computer components is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
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 amount to applying the abstract idea on a computer. Viewing these limitations individually, the limitations generically referring to a computing device, and at least one memory, at least one processor (claim 20), do not constitute significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment1. Viewing these limitations as a combination, the claims merely instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea with a high-level of generality executing computer functions. Merely applying an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of concrete or tangible components is not an inventive concept). Therefore, the limitations of the claim as a whole, when viewed individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
A review of dependent claims 9-19, likewise, do not recite any limitations that would remedy the deficiencies outlined above as they do not add any elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more. While they may slightly narrow the abstract idea by further describing it, they do not make it less abstract and are rejected accordingly. Further still, claim 20 suffer from substantially the same deficiencies as outlined with respect to claim 8 and is also rejected accordingly.
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 of this title, 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 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US Publication 2015/0156267) in view of Cvinar (US Publication 2020/0065853).
A. In regards to Claims 8 and 20, Zhang discloses a computer-implemented method and system comprising:
at least one memory storing non-transitory computer-executable instructions; Zhang [0008];
a computing device with at least one processor for executing the non-transitory computer-executable instructions; Zhang [0008];
receiving, by a computing device, first location data from a first user computing device; Zhang [0035: receives first current location information concerning a current location of the first client device, and second current location information concerning another current location of a second client device],
receiving, by the computing device, second location data from a second user computing device associated with a second owner; Zhang [0035: receives second current location information concerning another current location of a second client device],
determining, by the computing device, whether the first location data and the second location data are within a first threshold geographical proximity to one another; Zhang [0051: location information of first client device and the location information of second client device are obtained at regular intervals, and it is determined in real time whether the distance between first client device and second client device is less than the threshold distance];
and in response to the first location data and the second location data being within the first threshold geographical proximity to one another, sending, by the computing device, a first notification to the first user computing device and the second user computing device; Zhang [0035: a respective presence notification message is sent to the first client device and the second client device to notify the respective device of the presence of the other device];
Zhang does not specifically disclose, a first owner of a first physical article of a plurality of physical articles; this is disclosed by Cvinar [0068: sponsor may be a company that wishes to generate buzz around a brand or a new product offering];
a second owner of a second physical article from the plurality of physical articles. This is disclosed by Cvinar [0068: content providers through the tournament platform who can produce video submissions that relate to the brand or product].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for those skilled in the art to modify the teachings of Zhang with the teachings from Cvinar with the motivation of to provide a tournament platform to offer themes that stimulate content providers and users to provide market research information, advertising, and promotion of products or brands. Cvinar [0003].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Errol CARVALHO whose telephone number is (571)272-9987. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:30-7:00 Alt Fri.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ilana Spar can be reached on 571-270-7537. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/E CARVALHO/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622
1 See, Alice Corp. Pty Ltd. v. CLS Bank lnt'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2360 (2014) (noting that none of the hardware recited “offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking ‘the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment,’ that is, implementation via computers” (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610-11 (2010))).