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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
For claim 1:
a location module configured to detect the geographic location of the user;
a communication module configured to enable communication between the user and other users;
For claim 4:
a messaging module that allows users to communicate directly through the platform
For claim 5:
a notification module configured to notify the user when another user views the user's profile or enters the predefined geographic radius
For claim 11:
detecting using a location module the geographic location of the user
The above limitations are reciting a generic placeholder term (module) that is coupled to a function to be performed, and that is not being structurally modified in the claim by any other claim element. For this reason the above claim language is considered to be passing the 3 prong test for invoking 112f. The use of the term “module” is considered to be a generic placeholder term that does not connotate structure to one of ordinary skill in the art. The generic placeholder is coupled to a function and the claimed module is not modified by any structure in the claim such that it would not be invoking 112f.
For claim 8, it appears that 112f is also being invoked. The use of the terminology “radius adjustment module” that is performing the function of allowing a user to adjust the radius is also reciting a generic placeholder term of module, is reciting a function to be performed, and does not appear to be modified by any structure of the claim. Claiming that the system is providing the radius adjustment module does not appear to be modifying structure such that 112f would not be invoked.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 6, 8, 14, 16, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 contains a written description requirement that is separate and distinct from the enablement requirement. AriadPharms., Inc. v. EliLilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). To satisfy the written description requirement, the specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1562-63 (Fed. Cir.1991). Specifically, the specification must describe the claimed invention in a manner understandable to a person of ordinary skill in the art and show that the inventor actually invented the claimed invention. Vas-Cath, 935 F.2d at 1562-63; Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351. The written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph applies to all claims including original claims that are part of the disclosure as filed. Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1349. As stated by the Federal Circuit, "[a]lthough many original claims will satisfy the written description requirement, certain claims may not." Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1349; see also LizardTech, Inc. v. Earth Res. Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1343-46 (Fed.Cir. 2005); Regents of the University of Cal. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 119 F.3d 1559, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1997). For instance, generic claim language in the original disclosure does not satisfy the written description requirement if it fails to support the scope of the genus claimed. See Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1350; Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 968 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (holding that generic claim language appearing in ipsis verbis in the original specification did not satisfy the written description requirement because it failed to support the scope of the genus claimed); Fiers v. Revel, 984 F.2d 1164, 1170 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (rejecting the argument that "only similar language in the specification or original claims is necessary to satisfy the written description requirement"). In addition, original claims may fail to satisfy the written description requirement when the invention is claimed and described in functional language but the specification does not sufficiently identify how the invention achieves the claimed function. Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1349 ("[A]n adequate written description of a claimed genus requires more than a generic statement of an invention's boundaries.") (citing Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568).
For claims 6, 14, the specification does not provide an adequate written description of the invention that is sufficient to convey possession to one of skill in the art for the claimed radius adjustment module. The algorithm for the claimed radius adjustment module that is performing the function of allowing a user to adjust the radius has not been disclosed in the specification. In other words, the specification does not disclose how the invention achieves the claimed result and this represents a written description problem. Nothing has been disclosed beyond the disclosure to the function itself of allowing a user to adjust the radius. This is claiming a genus that is reciting an overall function to be performed, where the specification does not set forth how the system is able to achieve the result of allowing a user to adjust the radius. Nothing has been disclosed about the manner by which the applicant contemplated performing the radius adjustment. An adequate written description of the claimed genus requires more than a generic statement of an invention's boundaries as far as the overall function being performed. For this reason the specification does not provide an adequate written description of the claimed invention (allows for a radius adjustment to occur) that is sufficient to convey possession to one of skill in the art.
For claims 8, 16, the claim recites that the system enables a user to recommend a connection for one or more users. With respect to how the system is performing this function, the examiner notes that the specification discloses in paragraph 037 that the system can send a nudge to suggest a connection between the users, that helps users discover other users. It is not clear what it means to send a nudge as the specification discloses. What is a nudge? The specification does not teach how the system allows a user to make a recommendation. Nothing is disclosed about how the user interacts with the system to make the recommendation. The disclosure to sending a nudge at best is a disclosure to possibly sending the recommendation, but this is not teaching how the user is being allowed to make the recommendation by the claimed system. The disclosure does not set forth how the system is achieving the claimed result. The specification does not provide an adequate written description of the invention that is sufficient to convey possession to one of skill in the art for these reasons.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10, are 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.
For claim 1, the claim recites that the system allows the user to “save other user profiles” for later reference when those users are no longer within the predetermined geographic radius. It is not clear if this is claiming that the system itself is performing the saving of the profiles or if the claim is reciting that the user is storing the profiles that would not involve the claimed system. It is not clear what “allow the user to save other user profiles” requires of the system if anything at all. Does the system have to be doing the storage or does this allow for the user to do the storage such as by writing information down on paper? This is not clear and renders the claim indefinite.
For claim 4, the claim recites that the users can communicate directly through “the platform”. Claim 1 does not recite a platform. This term does not have proper antecedent basis. Claim 1 recites a system that includes a processor, memory, display device, location module and a communication module, but does not recite anything about having a platform. Is the platform really the same as the claimed system, or the claimed processor? This is not clear and renders the claim indefinite.
For claim 6, for reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 6 under 112a, the algorithm for the claimed radius adjustment module that is performing the function of allowing a user to adjust the radius has not been disclosed in the specification. This renders the claim indefinite. Because this limitation is invoking 112f, the covered structure includes a generic computer that is executing an algorithm by which the radius adjustment can be performed. The specification does not teach anything about how the system goes about and allows a user to adjust the radius. Nothing has been disclosed beyond the disclosure to the function itself of allowing a user to adjust the radius. Because of this deficiency, the specification is not teaching the algorithm that is used by the computer to perform the recited function. This results in the scope of the claim being indefinite for failure to disclose the algorithm.
For claim 10, the claim recites “the auto-delete feature”. This term does not have proper antecedent basis in the claim. No auto-delete feature has been recited previously so it is not clear what this is referring to. The claim recites that the instructions allow a user to broadcast a status. With respect to the claimed auto-deletion after a time period unless the user manually edits or disables the auto-delete features, it is not clear how this language is connected to the claimed system and whether or not it deserves weight. The claimed element at hand in claim 16 is the ability to broadcast a status, nothing more has been recited for the system. The broadcasting of a status is the only function that the system is claimed as performing. The fact that the status can be deleted later unless the user manually makes a change seems to be more of a general commentary of what could occur in the future rather than linking the system to the execution of a deletion step after a time period expires. What structure does this define for the claimed system? This is not clear. For these reasons the scope of claim 10 is not clear and is considered to be indefinite.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims recite a system and a method; therefore, the claims pass step 1 of the eligibility analysis.
For step 2A, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea of performing proximity based professional networking that notifies users of the presence of other users in a certain geographic area that match certain criteria, so that the users can connect with each other and establish new connections.
For claim 1, the abstract idea is defined by the elements of:
detect the geographic location of the user;
enable communication between the user and other users;
enable the user to create a user profile wherein the user profile includes one or more of the user's name, the user’s contact information, the user’s biographical details, the user’s workplace, the user’s industry, and one or more user interest tags;
display a dynamic feed of user profiles located within a predefined geographic radius,
wherein the dynamic feed is periodically updated based on users entering or leaving the predefined geographic radius;
provide a search bar enabling the user to search for other user profiles based on one or more predefined search criteria; and
allow the user to save other user profiles within the predefined geographic radius for later reference when those users are no longer within the predefined geographic radius
For claim 11 the abstract idea is defined by the elements of:
receiving input from a user to create a user profile containing information selected from the group consisting of the user's name, the user’s contact information, the user’s biographical details, the user’s workplace, the user’s industry, and one or more interest tags;
detecting the geographic location of the user;
displaying a dynamic feed of user profiles located within a predefined geographic radius of the user;
periodically updating the dynamic feed based on users entering or exiting the predefined geographic radius;
enabling a user to search the dynamic feed using interest tags or other predefined search criteria; and
allowing the user to save a user profile within the predefined geographic radius for later reference when the user is no longer within the predefined geographic radius.
The above limitations are reciting a system and method that is used to establish connections between users, that is in part based on user interest. This is the managing of relationships between people by providing a way for people to meet each other when they are attending an event or located in a certain geographic area where the people have similar interests. The claimed invention is a process by which people are introduced to others that they do not know, so that they have an opportunity to connect and establish a new connection (a new relationship with a human being). This is the act of social networking and facilitating a person to meet other persons so that they can establish new relationships. This is a concept that is managing the relationship between people and is considered to be a certain method of organizing human activities.
For claim 1, the additional elements of the claim are the processor, memory coupled to the processor, a display device with an interface to display to the user, and the recitation to the use of the location and communication modules that have been found to be invoking 112f. The claimed modules configured to perform the recited functions invokes 112f and is claiming the additional structure of a computer that is/can executing the algorithm to perform the claimed functions.
For claim 11, the additional elements of the claim are the user interface that is on a display device and is to receive input and display data to the user, and a location module. These elements are claiming generic computer implementation for the abstract idea as all computers have a display that has an interface that allows for data entry/input and data display to occur and the recitation to the use of the location module is also claiming a generic computer as being used to determine the location, such as by well-known GPS technology.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (2nd prong of eligibility test for step 2A) because the additional elements of the claim when considered individually and in combination with the claim as a whole, amount to the use of a computing device with a processor, memory, and the use of a display device that includes an interface that is being used as a tool to execute the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using a generically recited computing device with a processor and memory to execute steps that defines the abstract idea. The display device and the user interface is reciting an element that is the same as reciting a general purpose computer is used to accomplish part of the abstract idea. The use of the modules of the claim is a further recitation to using a computer to perform the steps that defines the abstract idea. This does not amount to more than a mere instruction to implement the abstract idea on a computer that has a display interface to allow for data entry and data display to occur, all of which are generically recited. This is indicative of the fact that the claim has not integrated the abstract idea into a practical application and therefore the claim is found to be directed to the abstract idea identified by the examiner.
For step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered individually and in combination with the claim as a whole because the additional elements of the claim when considered individually and in combination with the claim as a whole, amount to the use of a computing device with a processor, memory, and the use of a display device that includes an interface that is being used as a tool to execute the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using a generically recited computing device with a processor and memory to execute steps that defines the abstract idea. The display device and the user interface is reciting an element that is the same as reciting a general purpose computer is used to accomplish part of the abstract idea. The use of the modules of the claim is a further recitation to using a computer to perform the steps that defines the abstract idea. This does not amount to more than a mere instruction to implement the abstract idea on a computer that has a display interface to allow for data entry and data display to occur, all of which are generically recited.
The claims 1 and 11 do not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims are not considered to be eligible.
For claims 2, the claim is reciting more about the abstract idea. Claiming that the search criteria includes user interest tags is claiming more about the abstract idea. Tags are just data that is representative of other data, and the search criteria is itself part of the abstract idea. No further additional element has been claimed for consideration other than those recited in claim 1, that have already been addressed above and to which the applicant is referred.
For claim 3, the claimed links to external sources is considered to be part of the abstract idea. A link can be a reference such as a citation of a document that is relied upon in a thesis. Claiming that the link is for a website is considered to be an additional element that is claiming computer implementation for the abstract idea by reciting an executable link that takes you to a website. This is an instruction for one to use a computer to perform the act of linking a user with another entity. The link is generically recited and is the use of a computer to provide information to a user, which is nothing more than an instruction for one to use a computer to perform the steps that defines the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim does not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims is/are not considered to be eligible.
For claim 4 the allowing of the users to communicate directly is reciting more about the abstract idea. Allowing people to communicate with each other such as by talking to each other is part of the abstract idea that is managing relationships between people. The claimed messaging module is considered to be an additional element that is reciting generic computer implementation for the abstract idea. This does not amount to claiming integration into a practical application or significantly more for the same reasons set forth for claim 1.
For claims 5, 12, notifying the user when another users’ profile enters the geographic radius is claiming more about the abstract idea of claims 1 and 11. The notifications are part of the abstract idea because people can notify each other using paper and pen or verbally. This is part of the abstract idea and is reciting more about the managing of a relationship between people. Claim 12 does not recite any additional elements. The use of the notification module for claim 1 is considered to be an additional element that is an instruction for one to use a computer to perform the abstract idea, where the computer is simply being used as a tool to accomplish the notification step that is part of the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims do not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims is/are not considered to be eligible.
For claims 6, 14, allowing a user to adjust the radius is part of the abstract idea of claims 1 and 11. A user can verbally specify that they want to use a different radius. The use of the processor to provide an adjustment module is interpreted as being a link to computer implementation for the abstract idea. The processor and/or the adjustment module amount to an instruction for one to use computers to perform the steps that defines the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims do not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims is/are not considered to be eligible.
For claim 7, the enabling of a user to designate a tag and notify the user when a profile containing the tag enters the geographic radius are elements that are further defining the same abstract idea of claim 1. This can be the act of a user specifying that they want to meet fellow fans of a particular sports team while out at a bar, so that when a fellow sports team fan walks into the bar they can be notified of their presence. This is part of the abstract idea and is reciting more about the managing of a relationship between people. The use of the processor and the recitation to the notification module are further instructions for one to use a computer to perform the steps that defines the abstract idea and does not provide for integration or significantly more, see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is not eligible.
For claims 8, 16, enabling a user to recommend a connection to one or more users that have at least two interest tags of interest, is reciting more about the same abstract idea of claims 1, 11. People can make recommendations by talking to each other, which is a human activity. This is part of the abstract idea that is reciting more about the managing of a relationship between people. Claim 16 does not recite any additional elements. The use of the processor in claim 8 to allow for the recommendation to occur is a further instruction for one to use a computer to perform the steps that defines the abstract idea and do not provide for integration or significantly more, see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims is/are not eligible.
For claims 9, 13, enabling the user to view other profiles without sending a notification is a further embellishment of the abstract idea of claims 1, 11. This is the act of allowing a user to view a profile where the owner of the viewed profile is not notified. This can be done by people with no technology at all. This is part of the abstract idea that is reciting more about the managing of a relationship between people. Claim 13 does not recite any additional elements. For claim 1, the use of the processor to allow for the viewing without notification to occur is and additional element that is a further instruction for one to use a computer to perform the steps that defines the abstract idea and does not provide for integration or significantly more, see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims i/are not eligible.
For claims 10,15, allowing a user to broadcast a status, that is to be deleted after a time period, is reciting more about the abstract idea. A person can make a broadcast by writing it down on paper and erasing the broadcast at a later time. Allowing a broadcast is allowing a user to convey or transmit information in some manner. This is part of the abstract idea that is reciting more about the managing of a relationship between people. Claim 15 does not recite any additional elements. The use of the processor in claim 1 is a further instruction for one to use a computer to perform the steps that defines the abstract idea and does not provide for integration or significantly more, see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims is/are not eligible.
Therefore for the above reasons claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-9, 11-14, 16, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glass (20190026842) in view of Nasreddine (20200027139).
For claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 11, 12, Glass teaches a system and method for detecting the location of users in a given area (radius) and using profile information to match users to each other so that notifications can be sent to the users informing them that the other user is in the same area (radius). See paragraph 004 in general.
Glass teaches the claimed processor, memory, display. See paragraph 012 that discloses a CRM 106 and a computer 108.
Glass teaches the claimed location module that is configured to determine the location of the user. See paragraphs 004, 015, 016. Glass teaches that the location of the users is determined from their mobile devices, and that the location is used to determine what users in a given geographic radius.
The claimed communication module is also satisfied by the use of the Internet so that the computer 108 of Glass can communicate with other users. See paragraph 012 where this is disclosed.
Glass teaches the claimed ability for a user to create a profile that includes user interest tags and information about the user. See paragraphs 013, 014, 016, 017. A user profile can be created for the users that includes tags indicative of user interest. The profile information is compared to other user profiles that are located in the same geographic radius so that matches can be determined.
Glass teaches that a dynamic feed is presented to the user that includes the profiles of users that are in the predetermined geographic radius. See paragraph 018 that discloses the user being provided with identification of the users with matching profiles that are in the geographic radius. This satisfies the claimed dynamic feed that is presenting the profiles of the users. When users are in the geographic radius and the profiles match, they are displayed to the user. If they are not in the geographic radius, then they are not displayed. The feed is updated as claimed because Glass teaches that only those users in the radius are displayed to the user, so if they leave, they are not in the radius anymore and would not be displayed anymore. This satisfies the claimed updating of the feed. This is inherent to the operation of Glass. This satisfies what is claimed.
Glass teaches the claimed search bar that allows users to search for other user profiles, see paragraph 014. Glass teaches that the system includes a search module that allows users to search for other users. This satisfies what is claimed.
Glass does not disclose that the users are able to save other user profiles. The language reciting that the saving step is done so that the profiles can be used later is an intended when the user is not in the radius, use recitation of why the profile is being saved and does not further define anything to the claimed step.
Nasreddine discloses a social networking system that allows for users to refer other users. Disclosed in paragraph 054 is that the system provides the ability for a user to view and save profiles, such as the disclosed saving of business/professionals to a list for later reference.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Glass with the ability to save user profiles so that they can be referred to later, as is taught by Nasreddine. The ability to save a profile to view it later is known in the art. Lots of things can be saved by a computer for later use and this includes information about contacts in a social networking environment. This would yield the predictable result of allowing a user in Glass to be able to save information about a contact so that they can view it later. This is desirable when a person is busy and wants to save a profile for a contact so that they can review it later. This would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
For claim 4, the claimed messaging module (as best understood due to 112b issues) is satisfied by the messaging module 130 of Glass that allows users to message with each other. See paragraph 019.
For claims 6, 14, see paragraph 016 that teaches the geographic radius as being adjustable by the user. Discloses is that the radius can be set to 1, 2, 5, or 10 miles and can be defined by the user. This satisfies what is claimed.
For claims 9, 13, Glass teaches that a user can view a profile without the other user being notified of such. Nothing in Glass teaches that the user is notified of another viewing their profile. Glass allows users to view other user profiles when the users are located in the geographic radius, and if they want to make contact, a user can then reach out to the other user through the system which would result in a notification being sent. See paragraph 018-019.
For claims 8, 16, Glass does not teach that the system allows for a recommendation to be made for connecting two users. The part of the claim that is reciting the users as having two or more tags in common is non-functional descriptive material that does not define anything to the step of making the recommendation, which is the only step claimed.
Nasreddine discloses a social networking system that allows users to make referrals. A referral is a recommendation. See paragraphs 010. The claim does not recite the context in which the recommendation is being made so it can be for any reason. The ability for a person to make a recommendation to another person is something that is well known in the art of social connections. While Nasreddine teaches referrals, the examiner also takes official notice of the fact that it is well known in social networking and social media to recommend a user to others. The examiner has cited art at the end of this office action that supports the taking of official notice. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Glass with the ability to allow users to recommend a connection for another user, so that they can be referred to another contact that shares similar interests or for business purposes such as making a referral for job or other activity. Recommending/referring a person to another person for business or social purposes is something that is well known in the field of social networking, and would have been obvious to provide to Glass.
Claim(s) 10, 15, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glass (20190026842) in view of Nasreddine (20200027139) and further in view of Brown (20100313142).
For claims 10, 15, not disclosed is that the user is able to broadcast a status. Brown teaches a system and method that is used for social networking and that allows a user to indicate a marital status, or the status of other things such as if the user is a full time RVer or not. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Glass with the ability for a user to broadcast a status such as their marital status or RV status, so that others know their status. The profile information of the user includes the status information for the user so when that is viewed, it satisfies what is claimed. With respect to the deletion of the broadcast,
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glass (20190026842) in view of Nasreddine (20200027139) and further in view of Ruiz et al. (20190188648).
For claim 3, not disclosed by Glass is that the profile includes links to a social media account. Ruiz teaches in paragraphs 133, 156, that a user profile can include links to their social media accounts. It is known in the art of social networking and social media that users will include links to various external sources as part of their profile. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Glass with the ability to have links to an external source such as a social media account, so that users will be provided with ways to see other information from the user profile. This yields predictable results of linking other users to another social media account that the user has, which is different from the system of Glass.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ruiz et al. (20190188648) discloses the concept of making a referral to another user. This references teaches that the act of making a referral (a recommendation) to another user is well known.
Altman et al. (20070282621) teaches a dating system that uses location to match users with each other. This is relevant to the claimed invention.
Brown (20100313142) teaches a social networking system that uses location to match users with each other. his is relevant to the claimed invention.
Farver et al. (9043297) discloses a social networking system that uses location to match users with each other and is also found to be relevant to the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DENNIS WILLIAM RUHL whose telephone number is (571)272-6808. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-3:30pm.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at 5712703445. 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.
/DENNIS W RUHL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626