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 Claims
The office action is being examined in response to the amended application filed by the Applicant on October 25, 2024.
Amendments made to the specifications filed on October 25, 2024 are hereby entered.
Claims 1 - 20 were cancelled, while claims 21 - 40 were added.
Claims 21 - 40 are pending and have been examined.
This action is made NON-FINAL.
The Examiner would like to note that this application is now being handled by Examiner Ivonnemary Rivera González.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on October 18, 2024 and June 25, 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 21 - 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The analysis of this claimed invention recited in the claims begins in view of independent claim 21, the most representative claim of the independent claims set 21, 29 and 35, as follows:
At Step 1: Claims 21, 29 and 35 falls under statutory categories of a process, a machine and an article of manufacture, respectively.
At Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 21 (representative of claims 29 and 35) recites an abstract idea, in the following limitations:
causing…to disable a first set of features and a second set of features…
receiving…and at a first time at which location data provided…indicates that the user device is outside a geofence associated with a location, an indication that the user is en route to the location;
enabling…and in response to the indication, the first set of features…wherein the first set of features permits the user to access a portion of user profile data associated with one or more other users of the application located at the location;
initiating…and in response to the indication, tracking of coordinates…based on the location data provided…
determining…and at a second time based on the tracking, that the user device is inside the geofence associated with the location; and
enabling…at the second time, and in response to determining that the user device is inside the geofence associated with the location, the second set of features…wherein the second set of features permits the user to interact with the one or more other users of the application located at the location.
Generally, these limitations describe a method and a system for identifying and categorizing user information to efficiently manage social connections (e.g. public/private groups) and purchase offers and selections to promote sales activities for registered businesses. As disclosed in the specification in ¶0002 and ¶0018, this claimed invention “facilitates social connections between users who are physically present at the same venue” and “can enable or facilitate virtual and/or in-person connections between users of the social application 102 if location data associated with corresponding user devices 104 indicate that the users are physically present at the same venue”. However, the abstract idea(s) of a certain method of organizing human activity (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II) are/is recited in claim 21 in the form of “commercial or legal interactions” and “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people”. Specifically, the abstract idea is recited at least in the steps of “causing… to disable a first set of features and a second set of features” in user devices, “enabling…and in response to the indication, the first set of features…wherein the first set of features permits the user to access a portion of user profile data…” and “enabling…at the second time, and in response to determining that the user device is inside the geofence associated with the location, the second set of features…wherein the second set of features permits the user to interact with the one or more other users… application located at the location”. Because permitting or disabling users from using features related to access user profiles and/or interact with other users in a common location at least encompasses commercial interactions related to advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors and business relations. Similarly, the steps of “initiating…and in response to the indication, tracking of coordinates…based on the location data provided” and “determining…and at a second time based on the tracking, that the user device is inside the geofence” at a location also falls under the abstract idea sub-group of “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” since such coordinates tracking and location determinations are requiring the tracking of users’ social activities.
The step of and “determining…and at a second time based on the tracking, that the user device is inside the geofence” at a location fall under the abstract idea of mental processes that can be practically be performed in the human mind or in pen and paper (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III). Because determining if users are at a location with a predetermined distance by verifying the user tracking data encompasses observation, evaluation and judgement. Also, these steps can either be done with the help of physical aid such as pen and paper or can be performed by humans without or with the assistance (e.g. tool) a computer. Thus, the steps do not negate and further still reads in the mental nature of the limitation(s), when obtaining such information, as well as the concept is merely claimed to be performed on a generic computer and is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept of at least tracking and determining user location (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B & C)).
At Step 2A Prong 2: For independent claims 21, 29 and 35, The judicial exception(s) or abstract idea previously identified is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04 (d)). The claims recite the additional element(s) of a computing system (from claim 21); memory storing computer-executable instructions (from claim 29); one or more processors (from claims 29 and 35) and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions (from claim 35) and an application and a user device (from claims 21, 29 and 35). These additional elements, individually and in combination, and while considering the claims as a whole, are merely used as a tool to perform the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Specifically, these steps are recited as being performed by the computer. The computer used is recited at a high level of generality that is being used as a tool to perform the generic computer functions for receiving user indications, tracking and determining user location data related to the user being inside or outside a geofence, but in en-route at a location and based on these determinations, enable or disable different types of set of features in the application run by the computer. Thus, these steps mentioned above are further describing and applying the abstract idea without placing any limits on how the technological components are being improved, while distinguishing in the claim language, the performing limitations from functions that generic computer components can perform.
Step 2B: For independent claims 21, 29 and 35, these claims do not provide an inventive concept. The recited additional elements of the claim(s) are the following: a computing system (from claim 21); memory storing computer-executable instructions (from claim 29); one or more processors (from claims 29 and 35) and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions (from claim 35) and an application and a user device (from claims 21, 29 and 35). These additional elements are not sufficient to amount significantly more than the judicial exception or abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05). Because, as indicated in Step 2A Prong 2, these additional element(s) claimed are merely, instructions to “apply” the abstract ideas, which cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, which do not provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
For dependent claims 22 - 28, 30 - 34 and 36 - 40, the same analysis is incorporated. Due to their dependency to the independent claims analyzed, these claims cover or fall under the same abstract idea(s) of a method of organizing human activity and mental processes. They describe additional limitations steps of:
Claims 22 - 28, 30 - 34 and 36 - 40: further describes the abstract idea of the computer-implemented method and the determination user location information with respect to the geofence to disable first set of features if they are outside the geofence, further describes that the second set of features include “a virtual connection feature” to permit communications as well as buying items between users and this feature conditions for maintaining connections, further define the locations as venues, and other application features such as the inclusion map of locations with users location indications and private group enrollments with private location designations. Thus, these claim limitations involve the collection of user’s social activity data to offer/advertise sales and monitor the user’s location, selection and purchase behavior as well as the determination of user location requires observation, evaluation and judgement.
Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B: For dependent claim 22, this claim recites the additional element(s) of: one or more second user devices. These additional elements recited are invoking computers merely used as a tool to perform or “apply” the abstract idea(s) to the existing process of determining location data of other users and whether they are inside a geofence at a location. Thus, amounting to no more than mere instructions to “apply” the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f) and (f)(2)). Accordingly, for the same reasons stated above, these additional element(s) claimed cannot provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Finally, the additional elements previously mentioned above, are nothing more than descriptive language about the elements that define the abstract idea, and these claims remain rejected under 101 as well.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 21 - 22, 24, 26, 28 - 29, 31 - 32, 34 - 35, 37 - 38 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Trummer (U.S. Pub No. 20140222932 A1).
Regarding claims 21, 29 and 35:
This independent claim set is represented by claim 21
Trummer teaches:
causing, by a computing system, an application executing on a user device to disable a first set of features and a second set of features, wherein the user device is associated with a user of the application; (In ¶0082 – 83; Fig. 1 (102, 106 and 105); Fig. 2 (202 and undefined space element) and Figs. 7h – 7i, 8h, 8i and 8a: teaches that the reference system which is in the “form of a social application platform” (see ¶0115) can allow an “administrator” to perform the functions of “modifying either the first or second feature sets” and/or “removing a feature set”. Moreover, “an administrator may also wish to add or remove particular features in order to tailor the experience of a user 206 within an environment 201”. The first set of features and a second set of features claimed are interpreted as “each feature” that “may contain an additional method of communication (text, audio/video, or gestural like a wink) that may be used by the user with access to that particular feature set” (e.g. directed to second set of features). But also, “each feature may also contain a particular transaction that may be utilized by a user through their user device associated with a venue or committable area” such as the features that are access limited and are based on the user “checking-in to a venue” to be able to access user’s profiles including user “profile page” that “shows a picture along with the user's public information” as a portion of the user data profile as shown in Figs. 7h – 7i, 8h, 8i and 8a (e.g. directed to first set of features; see ¶0118 and ¶0122). Refer to ¶0072 for more details.)
receiving, by the computing system, via the application executing on the user device, and at a first time at which location data provided by the user device indicates that the user device is outside a geofence associated with a location, an indication that the user is en route to the location; (In ¶0080; Fig. 2 (202 and undefined space element); Fig. 3 (308 – 310) Figs. 12b and 12i: teaches that “at step 308, either the first or second user may initiate a particular action within either the first or second feature set in order to gain or grant access to the second location 204 within the venue” (e.g. however, it can also be outside the venue since the administrator can designate a “second location 204” that “is not required to be within the first location 202”; see ¶0072 and Fig. 2) wherein such “action” can be an “invitation” or “purchase of a “table” within the second location through the system 101”. Such “invitation” can be sent from a “second user to the first user” or the first user can initiate a “get invited” action to receive an invitation and confirm it to get access to features. Then, “at step 310, upon confirmation of either of these actions by the system controller 102” (e.g. the confirmation is interpreted as the user indication that the user is en route to the location), the “system controller 102 will associate the first user device a unique identifier associated with the second location 204”. In ¶0134 – 135, the user or “recipient”, in response to a “meet up request” from another user to meet up in a particular venue, can send an indication option of “On my way” as shown in Figs. 12b and 12i, which is directed to another example of a user indicating an en route message when the user is outside of the geofence, in accordance to the example given in ¶0050 from Applicant disclosure.)
enabling, by the computing system, and in response to the indication, the first set of features in the application executing on the user device, wherein the first set of features permits the user to access a portion of user profile data associated with one or more other users of the application located at the location; (In ¶0080; Figs. 8a and 8b: teaches an example wherein “user's profile screen with the initial feature set activated as a result of their current location within the venue” (e.g. or it can be outside the venue, if administrator set up a “second location 204” that “is not required to be within the first location 202”; see ¶0072 and Fig. 2). This way, the “first user has access to any of the actions contained within the feature set” which can include viewing another user profile that includes a “profile page shows a picture along with the user's public information” as shown in Figs. 8a and 8b (see ¶0122 for more details). Thus, “system 101 is not limited to these actions and as such additional actions may be available to a user depending on the set up of the system 101 by an administrator”. See ¶0068 also.)
initiating, by the computing system, and in response to the indication, tracking of coordinates of the user device based on the location data provided by the user device; (In ¶0073; Fig. 3 (310 – 311); Fig. 15g: teaches that the system can determine “if the user device 105 utilized by the user 206 is within the dimensions of the first or second locations 202, 204 through comparison of the location elements 203, 205 with the current GPS coordinates emitted by the user device 105” (e.g. wherein the admin’s designated that the “second location 204 is not required to be within the first location 202” suggesting that it can be a location outside the venue or “first location 202” that has the geofence; see ¶0072) and implementing “other methods of geospatial identification for the user device 105” such as “cell phone triangulation” (see ¶0073). See ¶0068 wherein the “user interface 104 also receives the required location data from the user device 105 in order for the system controller 102 to determine a user's ability to access a particular feature set within the functionality database 103”.)
determining, by the computing system, and at a second time based on the tracking, that the user device is inside the geofence associated with the location; and (In ¶0078 - 79; Fig. 2; Fig. 3 (303 and 305 – 306); Figs. 7g – 7h: teaches that “At step 303, the system 101 associates a feature set 103 b within the functionality database 103 with the first location element 203” which “allows for general functionality of those features to the user that are geographically present within that location, as indicated by their association with the first location element 203” Thus, this would grant all users within the venue access to that feature set upon associating themselves to the location within the system 101 (e.g., through proximity, checking-in, etc.)” which is directed to the determination that the user device is inside the geofence associated with the location. Also, “FIGS. 7 g and 7 h show an illustrative example of how a user could access an initial location through a check-in and utilize the feature set established for that venue.” Then, “at step 305, the system 101 associates the first location element 203 with the first user interface 104” in order to allow the “system 101 to begin interacting with any users that begin accessing the system 101” and “both associations allow for the venue 201 to begin allowing communications between users 206 and to grant system-based features” (see ¶0079).)
enabling, by the computing system, at the second time, and in response to determining that the user device is inside the geofence associated with the location, the second set of features in the application executing on the user device, wherein the second set of features permits the user to interact with the one or more other users of the application located at the location. (In ¶0080; Fig. 2; Fig. 3 (305 – 308); Fig. 8b: teaches that at “step 306”, “the system 101 associates the second location element 205 with the second user interface” and “at step 307, the first user now has access to the first feature set 103 b coupled to the first location 202 within the venue”. This is reflected in FIG. 8 b which illustrates an “example of a user's profile screen with the initial feature set activated as a result of their current location within the venue” that includes access to “any of the actions contained within the feature set” such as “actions” represented as “Wink, Offer Drink, Get Invited, Meet Up, Buy Drink, and Invite”. Moreover, “the system 101 is not limited to these actions and as such additional actions may be available to a user depending on the set up of the system 101 by an administrator” (see ¶0080). Finally, the system also “iterates” between the disclosed first and second time for a first and second user as it can “provide an iterative process for processing return signals into interactive responses by way of the service device” when processing user-initiated actions that “requires confirmation or completion of a transaction” (see ¶0113) or to “escalate the socialization between them” (e.g. users) “into higher ranked forms of communication as established within the system 101” (see ¶0088).)
Regarding claim 22:
Trummer, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 21.
Trummer further teaches:
wherein the computing system determines that the one or more other users are located at the location by determining that second location data, provided by one or more second user devices that execute the application and are associated with the one or more other users, indicates that the one or more second user devices are inside the geofence. (In ¶0122; Fig. 8a: teaches that the system can recognize other users that checked-in to the venue (see ¶0078 and ¶0117 – 118) and are now reflected in the first user’s interface at the “Community main screen within the application” wherein “users will see a grid showing all other active users within their particular venue” as shown in Fig. 8a. As for the location data given by a first or second user and required by the system to grant different set of features, see ¶0068 and ¶0073.)
Regarding claims 24, 31 and 37:
Trummer, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 21, 29 and 35, respectively.
Trummer further teaches:
wherein the second set of features comprises a virtual connection feature that permits the user and a second user, of the one or more other users, to establish a virtual connection and to exchange messages via the application. (In ¶0065; Figs. 7 and 8: teaches that the administrator’s customizable “feature sets” (see ¶0078 and ¶0080) can include “multiple actions that may be used by the various users 206 through their user devices 105 in order to interact with each other and the system 101” such as “chatting, sending pictures, non-language gestures (e.g., virtual winks, hugs, kisses, etc.), and invitations to committable areas” which are directed to establishing a virtual connection via a social application. Also, refer to ¶0118 for more examples and details regarding users establishing virtual connections through the “Mingle button” and refer to ¶0085, ¶0087 and ¶0090 for examples of a “progressive socialization” wherein an administrator “establishes a hierarchy amongst the actions that are present within a feature set” to enable communication features in a successive or progressive order.)
Regarding claims 26, 32 and 38:
Trummer, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 21, 29 and 35, respectively.
Trummer further teaches:
wherein the location is a venue, and the second set of features comprises an item feature that permits the user to, via the application, buy an item from the venue for a second user of the one or more other users. (In ¶0131; Figs. 10 – 11: teaches that teaches that one of the administrator’s customizable “feature sets” that can be an “Offer Drink” action (see ¶0078 and ¶0080), which is further described by the invention in an example wherein “the ‘Buy Drink’ module guides the user through the order process to select a drink for another user (FIG. 10 d thru 10 h, 10 p). Within the ‘Offer Drink’ module, a recipient user received the offer for a drink through their inbox (FIG. 11 g) and confirms the offer through a pop-up window (FIG. 11 i). Following their confirmation, the recipient may then go through the order process (FIG. 11 j thru 11 m) to complete their selection.”)
Regarding claims 28, 34 and 40:
Trummer, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 21, 29 and 35, respectively.
Trummer further teaches:
wherein the user is enrolled in a private group within the application, the location is designated in the application as a private location for members of the private group, and the one or more other users are additional members of the private group. (In ¶0154 – 155; Fig. 14m, 14p, 14q, 14r, 15c,15g and 15h: teaches that after the user selects the “get invited” option, a “recipient” or “Table/Cabana owner” that can be a “VIP area” (see ¶0153 – 154 or ¶0144 – 145) can confirm the user to the private table or cabana, and the user can change the “number of ‘friends’ they would like to bring along” (e.g. directed to additional members of the private group) which are integrated in the message. The message can include the invitation information such as “table/cabana information” and a “‘View location’ option” that “allows the user to locate the table/cabana on a venue map (FIG. 15 h)” (see ¶0157) which is directed to the designated private location in the app, in accordance to the examples given in ¶0033 and ¶0096 from Applicant disclosure. See ¶0148 also.)
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 23, 25, 27, 30, 33, 36 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trummer (U.S. Pub No. 20140222932 A1) in view of Zamer (U.S. Pub No. 20140250174 A1).
Regarding claims 23, 30 and 36:
Trummer, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 21, 29 and 35, respectively.
Trummer further teaches:
determining, by the computing system, and at a third time later than the second time, that the user device is outside the geofence associated with the location; and (In ¶0073; Fig. 3 (310 – 311); Fig. 15g: this limitation is still satisfied for any (e.g. third) time wherein the user authorized the app to track their coordinates or “checked-in” at the venue through the app (see ¶0116 – 117 and ¶0119), thus the system can determine “if the user device 105 utilized by the user 206 is within the dimensions of the first or second locations 202, 204 through comparison of the location elements 203, 205 with the current GPS coordinates emitted by the user device 105” (e.g. wherein the admin’s designated that the “second location 204 is not required to be within the first location 202” suggesting that it can be a location outside the venue or “first location 202” that has the geofence; see ¶0072) and implementing “other methods of geospatial identification for the user device 105” such as “cell phone triangulation” (see ¶0073). See ¶0068 wherein the “user interface 104 also receives the required location data from the user device 105 in order for the system controller 102 to determine a user's ability to access a particular feature set within the functionality database 103”. Refer to ¶0081 – 82, wherein the “administrator” of the venue can modify each user’s “feature sets” to choose and establish the boundaries wherein the social connection features are enabled/disabled.)
Trummer teaches that “available features sets” may be altered (e.g. removed/disabled) based on the users’ location when migrating “from one venue to another” and also, the user can click the “Check-out” option in the app interface to “allow a user to digitally “leave” a venue in order to access the feature set of another nearby property or in the event of the user changing venues” (see ¶0075 and ¶0119; Trummer). However, Trummer does not explicitly teach the ability of specifically disabling all social connection features. However, Zamer teaches:
disabling, by the computing system, at the third time, and in response to determining that the user device is outside the geofence associated with the location, the first set of features and the second set of features in the application executing on the user device. (In ¶0027; Figs. 2 and 9: teaches that “user devices may be disconnected from a social network upon moving outside of the predetermined proximity of its associated physical location”. Refer to ¶0047 for more details.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided Trummer with the ability of specifically disabling all social connection features, as taught by Zamer in order to provide “temporary social networks [that] allow[s] for the leveraging of users located at a physical location to provide real-time, crowd-sourced recommendations and information about the business and/or physical location.” (¶0021; Zamer).
Regarding claim 25:
Trummer, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 24.
Trummer does not explicitly teach the ability to have virtual connections persisting after a user or a second user, or both leave the venue. However, Zamer further teaches:
wherein the virtual connection persists within the application after one or more of the user or the second user leaves the location. (In ¶0027; Fig. 2: teaches “users may bring their user devices within a predetermined proximity of the physical locations 202, 204, and/or 206 (e.g., the user devices 208) in order to join the respective social network associated with that physical location” in which “those user devices may remain connected to a social network upon moving outside of the predetermined proximity of its associated physical locations for a predetermined amount of time”. Similarly, “in some embodiments, the user devices 210 and/or 212 may be connected to social networks provided by one or more of the physical locations 202, 204, and/or 206 while not being within their associated perimeters 202 a, 204 a, and/or 206 a, respectively.” Also, refer to ¶0047 – 48 for more details and to ¶0059 wherein text message applications can be included as second social features.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided Trummer with the ability to have virtual connections persisting after one or more users leave the venue, as taught by Zamer in order to provide “temporary social networks [that] allow[s] for the leveraging of users located at a physical location to provide real-time, crowd-sourced recommendations and information about the business and/or physical location.” (¶0021; Zamer).
Regarding claims 27, 33 and 39:
Trummer, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 21, 29 and 35, respectively.
Trummer teaches in Fig. 7p that the user can access a “venue map” that can be displayed (see ¶0117 and ¶0119; Trummer) and can view a “Meeting Location” as shown in Figs. 12i, 12f and 15h (see ¶0136 and ¶0157; Trummer). However, Trummer does not explicitly teach the ability of specifically displaying of a map with multiple locations wherein the user can select a map location from the map. However, Zamer further teaches:
wherein the application is configured to display a map of locations associated with geofences, and the indication is a user selection of the location from the map. (In ¶0045; Fig. 9: teaches in Fig. 9 wherein the user device can access a “social network information reporting screen 900” (directed to user input that selects a venue in the map as the indication) that “includes a physical area map 902 that displays a user location indicator 902 a that indicates the current location of the user device 900 on the map 902, along with a plurality of social network indicators 902 b that indicate the relative position of social networks on the map 902 that are near the user device 900”.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided Trummer with the ability to specifically displaying of a map with multiple locations wherein the user can select a map location from the map, as taught by Zamer in order to provide “temporary social networks [that] allow[s] for the leveraging of users located at a physical location to provide real-time, crowd-sourced recommendations and information about the business and/or physical location.” (¶0021; Zamer).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Altman (U.S. Pub No. 20070282621 A1) is pertinent because it “relate generally to mobile communication networks, and more specifically, to an online dating system that uses the relative location information for users.”
Mack (U.S. Pub No. 20220122196 A1) is pertinent because it “relates generally to social media applications. More specifically, the present disclosure describes social media applications for facilitating social interactions.”
Chaney (U.S. Pub No. 20160321697 A1) is pertinent because it “relates generally to a social media application for users to “club hop” via a mobile device application without physically traveling from venue to venue. Further, venues use the application to promote specials and events via the mobile application to attract customers.”
Caterbone (U.S. Pub No. 20190171687 A1) is pertinent because it “relates generally to the field of business searching and more specifically relates to business searching utilizing social methods to provide instant live feedback.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ivonnemary Rivera Gonzalez whose telephone number is (571)272-6158. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00AM - 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, Nathan Uber can be reached at (571) 270-3923. 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.
/IVONNEMARY RIVERA GONZALEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/NATHAN C UBER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626