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 .
This Office action is in response to the application filed on 08/21/2024.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/21/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is considered by the examiner.
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 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,095,875. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of the ‘875 patent encompass all of the limitations recited in claims 1-20 of the instant application.
More specifically, as shown in the claim comparison table below, claim 1 of the ‘875 patent includes every limitation recited in claim 1 of the instant application. Accordingly, claim 1 of the ‘875 patent are not patentably distinct from claim 1 of the instant application.
"A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a 35 patent claim to a species within that genus). " ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001).
Instant Application 18/811,669
Claim 1. A method comprising:
(1) receiving, from a first user device associated with a first user, a request
for a dynamic user profile of a second user;
(2) obtaining profile information of the second user that is based on a number of future shared conferences between the first user and the second user;
(3) generating the dynamic user profile based on the profile information, wherein the dynamic user profile is unique to the first user; and
(4) transmitting the dynamic user profile to the first user device for display.
U.S. Patent 12,095,875 B2
Claim 1. A method comprising:
determining a level of interaction between a first user of a software platform and a second user of the software platform;
(1) receiving, from a first user device
associated with the first user, a request for a dynamic user profile of the second user;
(2) obtaining profile information of the second user, wherein the profile information is based on the level of interaction between the first user and the second user, wherein the level of interaction is based on a number of future shared conferences between the first user and the second user;
(3) generating the dynamic user profile based on the profile information, wherein the dynamic user profile includes a summary of a recent conversation, shared public channels, recent conferences, and future conferences between the first user and the second user; and
(4) transmitting the dynamic user profile to the first user device for display,
(3) wherein the dynamic user profile is unique to the first user based on the level of interaction between the first user and the second user.
Claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,095,875 comprise the same element of claims 1-20 of instant application, respectively.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite a method/system comprising receiving a request for dynamic user profile, obtaining profile information, generating the dynamic profile, and transmitting the dynamic user profile. Under Step 2A, Prong one, claims recite an abstract idea. Specifically, the claims recite collecting information regarding users, analyzing the information to generate a personalized profile, and providing the generated profile for display. Such activities constitute certain methods of organizing human activity and alternatively can be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper, and thus fall within the categories of abstract ideas identified in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Under Step 2A, Prong Two, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements, including the software platform, dynamic user profile generator, and first user device, are recited as a high level of generality and merely perform generic computer functions of receiving, processing, generating, transmitting, and displaying information. The claims do not recite any improvement to computer functionality, and particular machine, or any transformation of an article to a different state or thing. Rather, the additional elements merely apply the abstract idea using generic computer components.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The recited software platform, dynamic user profile generator, and user device perform well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions, including receiving data, analyzing data, generating information, transmitting information, and displaying information. Considered individually and in ordered combination, the additional elements do not add a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field. Accordingly, claims 1, 8, and 15 are directed to an abstract idea and do not recite additional elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claims are not directed to patent-eligible subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moxon et al. (US 2016/0292284 A1), in view of Kwatra et al. (US 2022/0150189 A1), RANGAN et al. (US 2022/0327378 A1).
As to claim 1, Moxon discloses the invention as claimed, including a method comprising:
receiving, from a first user device associated with a first user, a request for a user profile of a second user (Fig. 6, 610; ¶0116, “the profile request can be received from a device 130 of first member of the social network system 210 using a network interface. The first member can be also referred to as a sender. The profile request can be of the profile of a second member. The second member can also be referred to as the receiver”; ¶0118, “The sender is the member in the social network system 210 that requests to view the profile page of the receiver at operation 1110”);
generating the user profile based on the profile information, wherein the user profile is unique to the first user (¶0022, “A profile page generation module can generate and present the profile page of the member to the viewer”; ¶0042, “This type of profile data 212 can also be used in generating the personalized profile”; ¶0053, “The profile page generation module 206 can generate a personalized profile page based on a member attribute 320”; ¶0101, “classifying an interaction between a receiver and a sender, and updating the receiver and sender scores 219 & 217 based on the interaction”); and
transmitting the user profile to the first user device for display (Fig. 8; Fig. 12; ¶0022, “A profile page generation module can generate and present the profile page of the member to the viewer”; ¶0039, “The entity attributes that are commonly requested and displayed as part of a member's profile”; ¶0137, “a personalized profile page with featured member attributes 420 of a member of the social network, according to various embodiments. The user interface 1200 can include a personalized profile page 1210 of a member of the social network system 210. Additionally, the personalized profile page 1210 can include featured member attributes 420, which can also be referred to as highlights 1220. The highlights 1220 can include a first featured member attribute 1230 and a second featured member attribute 1240”).
Although Moxon discloses a personalized user profile generated and updated based on interaction scores between a first user and a second user (Fig. 12, 1210-1240; ¶0101, “classifying an interaction between a receiver and a sender, and updating the receiver and sender scores 219 & 217 based on the interaction”; ¶0137), the personalized user profile corresponds to the claimed dynamic user profile, Moxon does not specifically use the term “dynamic user profile”.
However, Kwatra discloses a dynamic user profile (Fig. 9; ¶0016, “FIG. 9 depicts a flowchart of a method for generating a user profile in accordance with one or more embodiments”; ¶0059, “generate a user profile based on the relationship the user has with an interacting party”; ¶0085, “enabled to execute the conversation flow 800 that has been input and carry out the meaningful conversations in which a few of the user's tasks get completed in his/her absence using the dynamic user profile created”; ¶0088, “generates a user profile for an interaction between the user and the interacting party. The user profile can be stored in a pod. The pod stores the information representative of the user's personality and behavior when communicating with a particular interacting party”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Moxon to include dynamic user profile, as taught by Kwatra because it would automatically adapt and evolve in real-time based on incoming data, behavior, or context (Kwatra; ¶0016; ¶0059; ¶0085; ¶0088).
Moxon does not specifically disclose obtaining profile information of the second user that is based on a number of future shared conferences between the first user and the second user
However, RANGAN discloses obtaining profile information of the second user that is based on a number of future shared conferences between the first user and the second user (Fig. 2A; Fig. 2B; Fig. 3, 303, 305; Fig. 8, 803; ¶0002, “determine the future behavior or actions an entity or a user group likely to perform”; ¶0038, “A predicted entity value represents an amount of transactions that an entity is likely to interact with source entity A within a predetermined time period in the future”; ¶0040, “An engagement score represents the interactive activities between a source entity and a target entity. For example, the factors may include the number of meetings held in a predetermined period of time in the past such as 30 days, the number of meetings scheduled in a predetermined period of time in future such as the next 30 days”; ¶0041, “a number of upcoming (scheduled) meetings 216”; ¶0045, “the engagement score for each entity and the communication activity (e.g., meetings held and scheduled and emails sent) can be used to track the activities with the entities to ensure that the responsible user is interacting with the entities”; ¶0077). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Rogynskyy to include obtaining profile information of the second user that is based on a number of future shared conferences between the first user and the second user, as taught by RANGAN because it would provide enhanced meeting preparation and maximized scheduling efficiency (RANGAN; ¶0021; ¶0037; ¶0038; ¶0040).
As to claim 2, it is rejected for the same reasons set forth in claim 1 above. In addition, Moxon discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the user profile is based on at least one of a number of interactions between the first user and the second user over a software service of the software platform, a duration of at least one interaction between the first user and the second user over the software service of the software platform, or a frequency of interactions between the first user and the second user over the software service of the software platform (Fig. 10; Fig. 12; ¶0101, “classifying an interaction between a receiver and a sender, and updating the receiver and sender scores 219 & 217 based on the interaction”; ¶0106, “determine (e.g., update) a sender score 217 associated with the sender and a receiver score 219 associated with the receiver based on the classified interaction”; ¶0107, “the sender score 217 can: increase when the communication from the sender is classified as positive; decrease when the communication from the sender is classified as negative; or stay the same when the communication from the sender is classified as neutral. The receiver score 219 can be a score associated with the receiver's response to the transmitted communication. For example, the receiver score 219 can be updated based on the classification of the communication and whether the receiver responds to the communication”; ¶0109, “The classification table 1000 is used at operation 930 to classify the communication between the sender and the receiver, and to determine (e.g., update) the sender score of the sender (e.g., sender score 217) and the receiver (e.g., receiver score 219) based on the classification”; ¶0135, “determine whether the receiver is active based on a receiver activity associated with the receiver over a predetermined amount of time, the receiver activity including a past response by the receiver based on a past transmitted communication”;).
As to claim 3, it is rejected for the same reasons set forth in claim 1 above. In addition, Moxon discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the user profile is based on at least one of a number of shared files between the first user and the second user over a software service of a software platform, a number of shared tasks between the first user and the second user over the software service of the software platform, or a number of prior shared conferences between the first user and the second user over the software service of the software platform (Fig. 10; Fig. 12; ¶0045, “the activity data 216 can include information associated with applications and services that allow members the opportunity to share and receive information”; ¶0107, “the sender score 217 can: increase when the communication from the sender is classified as positive; decrease when the communication from the sender is classified as negative; or stay the same when the communication from the sender is classified as neutral. The receiver score 219 can be a score associated with the receiver's response to the transmitted communication. For example, the receiver score 219 can be updated based on the classification of the communication and whether the receiver responds to the communication”; ¶0109, “The classification table 1000 is used at operation 930 to classify the communication between the sender and the receiver, and to determine (e.g., update) the sender score of the sender (e.g., sender score 217) and the receiver (e.g., receiver score 219) based on the classification”).
As to claim 4, it is rejected for the same reasons set forth in claim 1 above. In addition, Moxon discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the profile information includes a plurality of elements, and wherein generating the user profile based on the profile information comprises: generating a relevance metric for each of the plurality of elements; determining a rank for each of the plurality of elements based on a respective relevance metric; and generating the user profile based on the rank of the plurality of elements (¶0020, “The member profile of a member can be a personalized profile that presents member attributes (e.g., profile highlights) on the profile page. The social network system can use an algorithm to determine (e.g., identify) member attributes of the member that are relevant (e.g., calculated based on common attributes) to the viewer of the profile page. In some instances, the member attributes can be ranked based on an overall score”; ¶0025, “determine the relevant (e.g., featured) member attributes for a viewer, and present the relevant member attributes as profile highlights in a profile page of a member. The scoring system can reduce noise in a social network, and increase connectivity between members in the social network”; ¶0101, “classifying an interaction between a receiver and a sender, and updating the receiver and sender scores 219 & 217 based on the interaction”).
As to claim 5, it is rejected for the same reasons set forth in claim 1 above. In addition, Moxon discloses the he method of claim 1, wherein the profile information includes a plurality of elements, and wherein generating the user profile based on the profile information comprises: generating a recency metric for each of the plurality of elements; determining a rank for each of the plurality of elements based on a respective recency metric; and generating the user profile based on the rank of the plurality of elements (Fig. 12, 1210-1240; ¶0061, “the overall score can be based on the timeframe associated with the member attribute 320 (e.g., recent content post versus education obtained 15 years ago)”; ¶0101, “classifying an interaction between a receiver and a sender, and updating the receiver and sender scores 219 & 217 based on the interaction”; ¶0107, “the receiver score 219 can be updated based on the classification of the communication and whether the receiver responds to the communication”; ¶0109, “The classification table 1000 is used at operation 930 to classify the communication between the sender and the receiver, and to determine (e.g., update) the sender score of the sender (e.g., sender score 217) and the receiver (e.g., receiver score 219) based on the classification”; ¶0137).
As to claim 6, it is rejected for the same reasons set forth in claim 1 above. In addition, Moxon discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the user profile identifies shared content between the first user and the second user, the method further comprising: receiving, from the first user device, a content request for the shared content; obtaining the shared content based on the content request; and transmitting the shared content to the first user device (¶0004, “a platform for a user to interact, make connections, and collaborate with an online community of people with similar interests, needs, and goals”; ¶0039, “The entity attributes that are commonly requested and displayed as part of a member's profile”; ¶0045, “the activity data 216 can include information associated with applications and services that allow members the opportunity to share and receive information, often customized to the interests of the member”; ¶0101, “an interaction between a receiver and a sender”; ¶0102, “a sender (e.g., viewer) can transmit a communication to the receiver (e.g., member owning the profile page). The communication can be based on a suggested action (e.g., featured member attribute 420) that the sender has clicked on”).
As to claim 7, it is rejected for the same reasons set forth in claim 1 above. In addition, Moxon discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the user profile is associated with a profile card of the second user, wherein the profile card is configured for display as a workspace between the first user and the second user (Fig. 8; Fig. 12; ¶0004, “a platform for a user to interact, make connections, and collaborate with an online community of people with similar interests, needs, and goals”; ¶0039, “The entity attributes that are commonly requested and displayed as part of a member's profile”; ¶0137, “The user interface 1200 can include a personalized profile page 1210 of a member of the social network system 210. Additionally, the personalized profile page 1210 can include featured member attributes 420, which can also be referred to as highlights 1220”).
As to claim 8, it is rejected for the same reasons set forth in claim 1 above. In addition, Moxon discloses a software platform (Fig. 1, 105-115; ¶0004, “a platform for a user to interact, make connections, and collaborate with an online community of people with similar interests, needs, and goals”).
As to claims 9-14, they are rejected for the same reasons set forth in claims 2-7 above, respectively.
As to claim 15, it is rejected for the same reasons set forth in claim 1 above. In addition, Moxon discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising stored instructions that when executed by a processor cause the processor to perform operations (Fig. 13; ¶0141-¶0143).
As to claims 16-20, they are rejected for the same reasons set forth in claims 2-6 above, respectively.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Thompson (US 10,445,304 B1), Rostami et al. (US 2021/0150623), Vivona et al. (US 2009/0083328), VADREVU et al. (US 2022/0414677), Grosz (US 2017/0093967), Yin et al. (US 2022/0101264), Dasari et al. (US 2019/0251073) disclose systems and methods for providing social interaction.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUNGWON CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3960. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5:30PM.
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, GLENTON BURGESS can be reached at (571)272-3949. 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.
/JUNGWON CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454 June 11, 2026
Prosecution Insights