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 . Claims 1-6 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-6 are objected to because of the following informalities.
In claim 1, applicant recites: “Initiating a contact protocol in which a name badge emits a signal indicating receptiveness to receive previously encoded answers” and “Identifying the answering badge with the greatest congruity of answers as the initiating name badge.” Given the former’s previous introduction in the claim and the latter’s lack thereof, these limitations should read: “Initiating a contact protocol in which the name badge emits a signal indicating receptiveness to receive previously encoded answers” and “Identifying an answering badge with the greatest congruity of answers as the initiating name badge.”
Examiner notes that this is not a matter of indefiniteness, given the antecedent basis is clear; however, the proposed changes would ensure consistency throughout the claim.
Further, in claim 1, applicant capitalizes each letter of the subordinate steps; for purposes of consistency, these should be lowercase.
The dependent claims are objected to by virtue of their dependency.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 5, the term “in which the physical distance is approximately 15 feet,” where “approximately” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Additionally, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree. Applicant has described in the specification at [0020] that “name badges will interact with other name badges within about 10-15 feet (roughly 3-4.5 meters).” However, it’s still not clear what qualifies as “approximately 15 feet.” Would a range of 5 feet meet this limitation? 50 feet? Given the lack of clarity associated with the relative term, the metes and bounds are indeterminate.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1 (The Statutory Categories): Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? MPEP 2106.03.
Per Step 1, claims 1-6 are to a method (i.e., a process), thereby passing Step 1 of the eligibility test. However, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The analysis proceeds to Step 2A Prong One.
Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? MPEP 2106.04.
The abstract idea of claim 1 is:
a. Obtaining a questionnaire comprising a number of questions, each having one or more answers;
b. Having the answers to each question encoded on a name badge;
c. Wearing the name badge in the presence of others within a physical distance wearing similar name badges;
f. Disregarding answers from those badges that fail to satisfy a superseding condition; and
g. Identifying the answering badge with the greatest congruity of answers.
The abstract idea steps italicized above describe a social interaction, in accordance with a set of rules or instructions, in which individuals wearing name badges identify matches based on answer similarity. This constitutes a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior relationships, interactions between people. Examiner notes that this interaction need not necessarily be technical, as individuals could sport name badges with color-coded answers, which could then be used to identify and match with other individuals with similar responses. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior relationships, interactions between people, including social activities, teaching, and/or following rules or instructions, then it falls within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity – Managing Personal Behavior Relationships, Interactions Between People grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? MPEP 2106.04.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, as described in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 1 recites the following additional elements: d. Initiating a contact protocol in which a name badge emits a signal indicating receptiveness to receive previously encoded answers; e. Receiving encoded answers from badges worn by others; h. Displaying identifying information for the wearer of the identified answering badge on the initiating name badge; the initiating name badge.
With respect to “h. Displaying identifying information for the wearer of the identified answering badge on the initiating name badge” and “the initiating name badge,” these elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer or a network, per MPEP 2106.05(f). Applicant has only described generic computing elements in their specification, as seen in [0012] of applicant’s specification as filed, for example.
With respect to “d. Initiating a contact protocol in which a name badge emits a signal indicating receptiveness to receive previously encoded answers” and “e. Receiving encoded answers from badges worn by others,” these elements are insignificant extra-solution activity that describes mere data gathering and does not meaningfully limit the abstract idea, per MPEP 2106.05(g).
Because the additional elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a generic computing system, which sends and receives data, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, when viewed alone or in combination. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, per Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements, alone and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B (The Inventive Concept): Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? MPEP 2106.05.
Step 2B involves evaluating the additional elements to determine whether they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The examination process involves carrying over identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two and carrying over conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two pertaining to MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements and their analysis are therefore carried over: applicant has merely recited elements that facilitate the tasks of the abstract idea, as described in MPEP 2106.05(f).
The elements identified as insignificant extra-solution activity – “d. Initiating a contact protocol in which a name badge emits a signal indicating receptiveness to receive previously encoded answers” and “e. Receiving encoded answers from badges worn by others” – are reevaluated at Step 2B; however, they’re still not significantly more. Per MPEP 2106.05(d), receiving or transmitting data over a network is recognized by the courts as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner. See citations in MPEP 2106.05(d) to Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Further, the combination of these elements is nothing more than a generic computing system, which sends and receives data, applied to the tasks of the abstract idea. When the claim elements above are considered, alone and in combination, they do not amount to significantly more.
Therefore, per Step 2B, the additional elements, alone and in combination, are not significantly more. The claims are not patent eligible.
The analysis takes into consideration all dependent claims as well:
Dependent claims 2 and 4-6 merely narrow the abstract idea above with additional abstract steps and/or information. This narrowing of the abstract idea does not integrate it into practical application and/or add significantly more. The claims are ineligible.
Dependent claim 3 recites further additional elements (comprised of computer hardware and software, adapted to perform the required actions). Similar to above, these additional elements are generic computing elements that simply facilitate the tasks of the abstract idea, per MPEP 2106.05(f). Applicant has only described generic computing elements in their specification as filed, as seen in [0012]. Whether viewed alone or in combination, this does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application and/or add significantly more. The claim is ineligible.
Accordingly, claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarkar (US 20130267171) in view of Rattray (US 20210235568).
Claim 1
Sarkar discloses:
A method of making highly relevant contacts at an event {method described in [0005].
making relevant contacts at an event described in [0073]: In some embodiments, the smart badge system is a mechanism for information exchange between people with similar interests. For example, the setting might be densely populated (by these badges) such as in a conference or a professional organization meeting or may be sparse such as when two people exchange their business cards during a chance encounter at a shopping mall. In a conference setting, there may be several tens of users in a single room as opposed to a sparse distribution of the cards in a shopping mall.
Examiner notes that highly relevant is defined by applicant in [0016] of the specification as “the person with the highest degree of answer similarity.”
Examiner asserts this is equivalent to producing a high match, described in [0057] of Sarkar: In some embodiments, there may be additional breakdown of comparison, e.g., a sliding scale. For example, there may be preset values of "high", "medium", "low" and/or "no match". As an example, if there are three possible items or interests that a user is searching for and: (1) a third-party user has a match of 3/3, then he may be considered a "high" match; (2) a third-party user has a match of 2/3, then he may be considered a "medium" match; (3) a third-party user has a match of 1/3, then he may be considered a "low" match; or (4) a third-party user has a match of 0/3, then he may be considered "no match". } comprising the steps of:
b. Having the answers to each question encoded on a name badge {answers to each question represented by user input provided in response to questions pertaining to professional, social, extracurricular interests, described in [0041]: Referring now to FIG. 4, a flow diagram describing an example user profile entry process 400 is shown. User entry profile process 400 generally describes how a user may enter his profile information and set the profile information about others. In a first step, a user opens a smart badge website or equivalent application in box 410. Thereafter, the user logs into an account, e.g., by entering a username and/or password, in box 420. The user is then prompted to select one or more profiles, e.g., professional, social, extracurricular, etc., in box 430. The user may enter the profile information as described above in the discussion of FIG. 3. Next, in box 440, the user may select who or what kind of person they are looking to obtain information about. For example, the user may desire to find others that have an interest in yoga. In such an example, the user can use a dropdown menu to select that they are looking for "extracurricular profile type" with the activity of interest being yoga.
encoded on the name badge described in [0032], where memory unit 160 is part of smart badge 100: Memory unit 160 may be configured to store data temporarily or for long term use by other components of the smart badge 100, such as for storing data used by the data profile module 280. Such stored data may include user-profile data such as the person's social, professional and extracurricular interests along with her desire to collaborate with individuals with specific profiles on the social, professional or extracurricular front (e.g., a wireless networker interested in collaborating with a researcher in video compression technologies).};
c. Wearing the name badge in the presence of others within a physical distance wearing similar name badges {Wearing the name bade in the presence of others within a physical distance wearing similar name badges described in [0031]: Display unit 150 may be configured to display information to a user or wearer of the smart badge. For example, in some embodiments, display unit 150 includes a liquid crystal display ("LCD") and presents information to the user in the form or text and/or images. The LCD may, in some embodiments, be a touch screen. Alternatively, display unit 150 may be used itself for displaying messages and interactions with other smart badges. For example, in some embodiments, display unit 150 may be configured to provide a third-party's profile picture, such as when a person having a similar interest to the smart badge wearer is nearby. This would allow the smart badge wearer to easily identify someone who the smart badge exchanged information with and has a similar interest with, allowing the smart badge wearer to more easily initiate a conversation.
Also see [0115]: Unbeknownst to Alice, her good friend Eve from the same neighborhood passes by on an opposite escalator. Eve is wearing her smart badge clipped to her purse. Both women are tending to their luggage and departure times and fail to recognize each other on the escalator. However, as the two pass by, their two smart badges detect one other and exchange profile data.};
d. Initiating a contact protocol in which a name badge emits a signal indicating receptiveness to receive previously encoded answers {badge periodically broadcasts preamble packets when receptive to an interaction, i.e., Initiating a contact protocol in which a name badge emits a signal indicating receptiveness to receive previously encoded answers, described in [0078]: In some embodiments, all nodes may be assumed to be in sleeping mode. When the Sleep-Timer of a node, e.g., node `A`, expires, the node performs a Clear Channel Assessment ("CCA"). If the channel is found to be free, it may broadcast a short, e.g., strobed, preamble frame containing its source address and Basic Profile. Meanwhile, any other node in the vicinity, e.g., node `B`, may wake up and may listen to the broadcast. Since `B` is in the hearing range of `A`, it might be the case that `B` concludes that their profiles match and hence it wishes to exchange its profile description with `A`.};
e. Receiving encoded answers from badges worn by others {Receiving encoded answers from badges worn by others described in [0038]: As outlined above, smart badges provide a means for two persons coming into physical proximity, for instance, shaking hands or simply passing close to one another at a conference, a social party, or even a super-market, to exchange some information corresponding to the contents of a generalized business card. Because a random profile exchange and storage might not be of interest to either party concerned (nor a fruitful exercise in conserving battery and memory space in the badge), the smart badges may be configured to first detect a potential overlap in "interest" of the two parties (e.g., using a key-indexed quick profile-matching algorithm), followed by a detailed data exchange, only if there is a "match".
Also see [0043]: In some specific embodiments, profile data exchanged by smart badges that come into contact with one another may be encapsulated in XML Schema compliant documents.};
f. Disregarding answers from those badges that fail to satisfy a superseding condition {badge doesn’t store user profile information, i.e., answers, from other badges unless correlation coefficient is greater than predetermined threshold, i.e., Disregarding answers from those badges that fail to satisfy a superseding condition, described in [0060]: If the correlation coefficient is greater or equal to the predetermined threshold, the third-party's user profile may be stored in box 660. In some embodiments, the stored third-party user profiles may be tiered, such as using the sliding scale binning.
Also see [0061], which discloses that steps may be performed on badge: If steps 630-660 are performed on the smart badge, then the controller, e.g., a processor, will typically be employed for matching with the advantage being that access to the internet is not necessary and hence can be done almost everywhere.};
g. Identifying the answering badge with the greatest congruity of answers as the initiating name badge {Identifying the answering badge with the greatest congruity of answers as the initiating name badge described in [0057]: In some embodiments, there may be additional breakdown of comparison, e.g., a sliding scale. For example, there may be preset values of "high", "medium", "low" and/or "no match". As an example, if there are three possible items or interests that a user is searching for and: (1) a third-party user has a match of 3/3, then he may be considered a "high" match; (2) a third-party user has a match of 2/3, then he may be considered a "medium" match; (3) a third-party user has a match of 1/3, then he may be considered a "low" match; or (4) a third-party user has a match of 0/3, then he may be considered "no match". It should be appreciated that the use of three possible items or interests is arbitrary, and that any number may be used. Additionally, the sliding scale may also be altered, as desired.
Examiner notes that while greatest congruity of answers isn’t used in applicant’s specification, the limitation is described in [0016] of the spec: The degree of similarity between the initiating and answering smart name badges are determined (307) and the person with the highest degree of answer similarity will be indicated to the wearer of the initiating name badge (308). Preferably, the wearer of this answering name badge will have their name and some indication of their matching qualities displayed on the initiating badge prompting the two wearers to meet. Accordingly, the feature is demonstrated by Sarkar, which discloses a high match, i.e., greatest congruity of answers.}; and
h. Displaying identifying information for the wearer of the identified answering badge on the initiating name badge {Displaying identifying information for the wearer of the identified answering badge on the initiating name badge described in [0031]: For example, in some embodiments, display unit 150 may be configured to provide a third-party's profile picture, such as when a person having a similar interest to the smart badge wearer is nearby. This would allow the smart badge wearer to easily identify someone who the smart badge exchanged information with and has a similar interest with, allowing the smart badge wearer to more easily initiate a conversation. }.
While examiner contends that a. Obtaining a questionnaire comprising a number of questions, each having one or more answers is potentially disclosed by Sarkar, given that a questionnaire is simply a form used to collect information and the user entry profile process 400 described in [0041] could be considered equivalent, an additional reference is provided for the purposes of compact prosecution.
Accordingly, examiner looks to Rattray, which is in a similar field of endeavor directed to facilitating interactions via wearable devices and teaches:
a. Obtaining a questionnaire comprising a number of questions, each having one or more answers {Obtaining a questionnaire comprising a number of questions, each having one or more answers described in [0040], where the information request screen 400 represents a questionnaire: FIG. 4 depicts a portion of an example information request screen 400 of a user application executing on a user mobile device according to various embodiments. Information request screen 400 may be used to enter personal or other information relating to the user. In particular, the information requests may in the form of questions, to which a user may select an answer from a preselected list of answers, or, alternatively, provide a freeform answer, for example. Questions for the example of a university student orientation environment may include, by way of non-limiting example, the following. “What dorm are you assigned to?” “Who is your advisor?” “How many languages do you speak?” “What is your major” “How many siblings do you have?” According to some embodiments, uniformity is important for the wearable devices to be able to determine which others have common responses. For this reason responses to questions may be finite and participants may be given the option to choose the response that is most applicable to them. As depicted in FIG. 4, information request screen 400 includes major drop-down menu 402 for selecting a major, operating system drop-down menu 404 for selecting an operating system, and dorm selection screen 406 for selecting a dorm. Other selection possibilities are possible.}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Sarkar to include the features of Rattray. Given that Sarkar is directed to facilitating interactions between individuals with similar user profiles, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to Rattray, in order to streamline identifying other users with similar responses {[0025] of Rattray}.
Claim 2
Regarding claim 2, Rattray further teaches: in which the number of questions is five and in which each of the five questions has up to 10 answers {five questions and multiple answers described in [0040]: FIG. 4 depicts a portion of an example information request screen 400 of a user application executing on a user mobile device according to various embodiments. Information request screen 400 may be used to enter personal or other information relating to the user. In particular, the information requests may in the form of questions, to which a user may select an answer from a preselected list of answers, or, alternatively, provide a freeform answer, for example. Questions for the example of a university student orientation environment may include, by way of non-limiting example, the following. “What dorm are you assigned to?” “Who is your advisor?” “How many languages do you speak?” “What is your major” “How many siblings do you have?” According to some embodiments, uniformity is important for the wearable devices to be able to determine which others have common responses. For this reason responses to questions may be finite and participants may be given the option to choose the response that is most applicable to them. As depicted in FIG. 4, information request screen 400 includes major drop-down menu 402 for selecting a major, operating system drop-down menu 404 for selecting an operating system, and dorm selection screen 406 for selecting a dorm. Other selection possibilities are possible.}.
The motivation and rationale to include the additional features of Rattray is the same as set forth previously.
Claim 3
Regarding claim 3, Sarkar further discloses: in which the name badge is comprised of computer hardware and software, adapted to perform the required actions {computer hardware and software described in [0022]: Referring initially to FIG. 1, a functional block diagram illustrating an example structure of a smart badge 100 is shown. Smart badge 100 may include a control unit 110, a communication unit 130, a power supply unit 140, a display unit 150, a memory unit 160, an input/output ("I/O") unit 170, and a synchronization or "sync" unit 175. In some embodiments, smart badge 100 may also optionally include a speaker 180 and/or a microphone 190. Control unit 110 may include an operations unit 120.}.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Sarkar and Rattray, further in view of Coelho (US 20150171926).
Claim 4
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Sarkar and Rattray doesn’t explicitly teach, however, Coelho, in a similar field of endeavor directed to electronically enabled in-person social networking, teaches: in which the answers to the five questions are encoded in a five-digit number {five questions are encoded in a five-digit number described in [0060]: FIG. 8 is a flow diagram 800 for match evaluation. The flow 800 starts with transmitting a first unit payload 810. The wireless transceiver of a first device can receive an eight-byte payload and two-byte hardware identifier from a second device or a user identification. The eight-byte payload can comprise five bytes of profile information. The remaining three bytes can be used for transmitting a group identifier (group ID) and a control byte to signify that the rest of the payload contains matching information. In the case of binary strings, a five-byte string can accommodate up to 40 yes/no responses.}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination of Sarkar and Rattray to include the features of Coelho. Given that Sarkar is directed to facilitating interactions between individuals with similar user profiles, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to Coelho, in order to facilitate additional conversations in a social networking context and allowing "ice-breaking" to occur between the two users, thereby removing potential obstacles in further developing social and/or business relationships {[0021] of Coelho}.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Sarkar and Rattray, further in view of Chaudhuri (US 20050038876).
Claim 5
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Sarkar and Rattray doesn’t explicitly teach, however, Chaudhuri, in a similar field of endeavor directed to instantly connecting and matching people and business entities with reciprocal interests, teaches: in which the physical distance is approximately 15 feet {approximately 15 feet described in [0008]: In the past, several attempts have been made in a number of different countries around the world to develop solutions for location and presence based instant communication. In Japan, a device called "Lovegety" was launched in 1998. The device had three buttons that the user could set according to the kind of activity he or she had in mind: "talk," "karaoke," and "get2." Once the holder selects a mode, the device searches for Lovegety holders of the opposite sex in a 15 feet radius.}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination of Sarkar and Rattray to include the features of Chaudhuri. Given that Sarkar is directed to facilitating interactions between individuals with similar user profiles, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to Chaudhuri, in order to facilitate a better likelihood of a match from a larger pool of users by operating over a distance without requiring line-of-sight or close proximity {[0016] of Chaudhuri}.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Sarkar and Rattray, further in view of Grifoni (US 20150326682).
Claim 6
Regarding claim 6, Sarkar further discloses: badges {[0031]}.
The combination of Sarkar and Rattray doesn’t explicitly teach, however, Grifoni, in a similar field of endeavor directed to facilitating communication between users in close proximity who have indicated a mutual interest, teaches: in which the superseding condition is whether the [users] have previously matched within a set time frame {previously matched within a set time frame described in [0014]: After the system generates and sends the second notification, if the system does not receive mutual confirmations, the system removes the previously paired users from the paired list. The paired users are removed from the particular match list with this particular user because one user has indicated that communication with the now disclosed other user is not desirable. Both users are placed back into the available pool to search for other members but will not be paired again with each other.}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination of Sarkar and Rattray to include the features of Grifoni. Given that Sarkar is directed to facilitating interactions between individuals with similar user profiles, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to Grifoni, in order to reduce the likelihood of a user forgetting to remove a previously matched user from their interest list {[0014] of Grifoni}.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
“Towards a Smart Campus with Mobile Social Networking” (NPL attached), which teaches: With the development of wireless communication, the popularity of smart phones, the increasing of social networking services, mobile social networking has become a hot research topic. The characteristics of mobile devices and requirements of services in social environments raise a challenge on building a platform for mobile social services. In this paper, we elaborate a flexible system architecture based on the service-oriented specification to support social interactions in campus-wide environments. In the client side, we designed a mobile middleware to collect social contexts such as the proximity, the cell phone log etc. The server backend, on the other hand, aggregates such contexts, analyses social connections among users and provides social services to facilitate social interactions. A prototype of mobile social networking system is deployed on campus, and several applications are implemented based on the proposed architecture to demonstrate the effectiveness of the architecture.
US 20050174975, which teaches: Embodiments of the present invention include improved communication system and methods. In one embodiment, the present invention includes a wireless communication method comprising, on a first wireless device, receiving one or more wireless device identifications associated with one or more other wireless devices, and transmitting at least one of the one or more wireless device identifications from the first wireless device to a remote computer system, and on the remote computer system, receiving the at least one wireless device identification, and accessing information associated with the at least one wireless device identification. Embodiments of the present invention may be used for electronic dating, social networking and other communication applications.
US 20080064374, which teaches: The present invention includes a wireless communication method and device comprising a one-to-one exchange of wireless electronic device identifications or unique profile IDs between a sending and a receiving party who are both registered users of the electronic business/personal card service and further comprising upload of the wireless electronic identifications to a data server computer system wherein said system matches said identifications with those of registered users and said computer system displays information about the user associated with each identification.
US 20110029611, which teaches: A device and method is provided for signaling an affinity of a peer device. According to one embodiment, the device receives a wireless signal from the peer device and determines the presence of the peer device based on the received signal. The device is able to detect the peer device when the peer device is within the vicinity or a certain proximity of the device. The received signal carries an affinity code of the peer device so that the device can detect the affinity of the peer device by comparing the received affinity code with its preset affinity code. If the two affinity code match, the device generates an the user to the presence of another user and signals that the two users share the same affinity.
US 20110238755, which teaches: Various embodiments facilitate proximity-based social networking. In one embodiment, a Proximity-based Social Networking facilitator system ("PSN") determines and provides a user with relevant information based on his proximity to other users of his social and other networks. Proximity determinations may be based on various factors, including user location, user affinity, user activities, and the like. In one embodiment, the PSN determines a group of users that are proximately located to one another, and provides users of the group with information about other users without disclosing their actual location on a map. The users of the group receive the information via mobile computing devices, and can use the mobile computing devices to further interact with the other users of the group, such as by arranging meetings, communicating, and/or engaging in transactions.
US 20190045478, which teaches: An embodiment of a semiconductor package apparatus may include technology to determine if one or more co-located radio transmitters and radio receivers are in a tracked area, enable an active tracking mode if one or more of the co-located radio transmitters and radio receivers are determined to be in the tracked area, and periodically transmit identification information from at least one of the radio transmitters if the active tracking mode is enabled. Other embodiments are disclosed and claimed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN SAMUEL WASAFF whose telephone number is (571)270-5091. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:00 am to 6:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, SARAH MONFELDT can be reached at (571) 270-1833. 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.
JOHN SAMUEL WASAFF
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3629
/JOHN S. WASAFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629