DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to the response to the amendment filed on 12/10/2025. Claims 21, 27-29, 31, 34-36, and 38 have been amended. Claims 21-40 are pending and currently under consideration for patentability.
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 .
Inventorship
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 09/07/2025 and 11/18/2025 has/have been 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 non-statutory subject matter. The claims are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: In a test for patent subject matter eligibility, claims 21-40 are found to be in accordance with Step 1 (see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility), as they are related to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Claims 21-26 recite a method; claims 27-33 recite a computer-readable medium; and 34-40 recite a system. When assessed under Step 2A, Prong I, they are found to be directed towards an abstract idea. The rationale for this finding is explained below:
Step 2A, Prong I: Under Step 2A, Prong I, claims 21-40 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, as they all recite a judicial exception. Claims 21, 27, and 34 recite limitations directed to the abstract idea including displaying a profile of a target to a seeker, the profile of the target including an interest of the target; receiving an input from the seeker; determining a potential interest of the seeker, at least in part based on the interest of the target; determining an existing interest of the seeker; determining that the potential interest is an additional interest of the seeker; and adding the potential interest of the seeker to a profile of the seeker, at least in part based on the input. These further limitations are not seen as any more than the judicial exception. Claims 21, 27, and 34 also recite additional limitations including “in an online dating service”. A method of adding potential interest of a seeker to a profile of the seeker based on input is considered to be an abstract idea, specifically, certain methods of organizing human activity; such as managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) because the claims are directed to managing interaction between people such as a target and seeker in order to determine interests and add said interests to a profile. Furthermore, the method of adding potential interest of a seeker to a profile of the seeker is considered to fall under another abstract idea, specifically, Mental Processes; such as concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) because the claims are directed to displaying data (i.e. profile of a target), receiving data (i.e. input from seeker), determining data (i.e. potential interest of seeker), determining data (i.e. existing interest of seeker), determining data (i.e. potential interest is additional interest); and adding data to a profile (i.e. adding potential interest of seeker to profile of seeker). Therefore, under Step 2A, Prong I, claims 21, 27, and 34 are directed towards an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong II: Step 2A, Prong II is to determine whether any claim recites any additional element that integrate the judicial exception (abstract idea) into a practical application. Claims 21, 27, and 34 also recite additional limitations including “in an online dating service”. These additional limitations are seen as merely using an apparatus and computer-readable medium to describe the environment in which the abstract idea takes place which is seen as additional elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process. These are not found to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they are seen as adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f), adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g), and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h). Accordingly, alone, and in combination, these additional elements are seen as using a computer or tool to perform an abstract idea, adding insignificant-extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. They do no more than link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, i.e. online dating service, and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The courts decided that although the additional elements did limit the use of the abstract idea, the court explained that this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and this fails to add an inventive concept to the claims (See Affinity Labs of Texas v. DirecTV, LLC,). Under Step 2A, Prong II, these claims remain directed towards an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claims 21, 27, and 34 also recite additional limitations including “in an online dating service”. These additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception (abstract idea) into a practical application because of the analysis provided in Step 2A, Prong II. Claims 21, 27, and 34 do not include additional elements or a combination of elements that result in the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements listed amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component. In addition, the applicant’s specifications describe the system as “Similarly, any of the potential processing elements, modules, and machines described in this Specification should be construed as encompassed within the broad term "processor."” (See ¶ [00173] of the Applicant’s specification) for implementing the apparatus and/or computer-readable medium, which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea of itself, which is not enough to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter. Furthermore, there is no improvement in the functioning of the computer or technological field, and there is no transformation of subject matter into a different state. Under Step 2B in a test for patent subject matter eligibility, these claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 22-26, 28-33, and 34-40 further recite the method of claim 21, computer-readable medium of claim 27, and system of claim 34. Dependent claims 22-26, 28-33, and 34-40 when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea:
Under Step 2A, Prong I, these additional claims only further narrow the abstract idea set forth in claims 21, 27, and 34. For example, claims 22-26, 28-33, and 34-40 describe the limitations for a method of adding potential interest of a seeker to a profile of the seeker – which is only further narrowing the scope of the abstract idea recited in the independent claims.
Under Step 2A, Prong II, for dependent claims 22-26, 28-33, and 34-40, there are no additional elements introduced. Thus, they do not present integration into a practical application, or amount to significantly more.
Under Step 2B, the dependent claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Additionally, there is no improvement in the functioning of the computer or technological field, and there is no transformation of subject matter into a different state. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional claims do not provide any additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Under Step 2B, these claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102(a)(1)
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.
Claim(s) 21-24, 26-30, 32-37, 39, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Publication 2024/0370943 to Gulati.
Claims 21-26, 27-33, and 34-40 are method, computer-readable media, and system claims, respectively, with substantially indistinguishable features between each group. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Office has grouped the common method, system and non-transitory computer readable storage medium claims in applying applicable prior art.
With respect to Claim 21:
Gulati teaches:
A method, comprising: displaying a profile of a target in an online dating service to a seeker, the profile of the target including an interest of the target (i.e. displaying dater’s dating matches to dater) (Gulati: ¶ [0038] “In one embodiment, social media platform 208 may provide a dating service that enables users to view and/or connect with potential dating matches (i.e., recommended dating matches). The dating service may select potential dating matches for a user (e.g., algorithmically) using any type or form of recommended match selection system. In some examples, the dating service may enable a user to create a digital dating profile. The digital dating profile may be presented, via an interface of a dating application ( e.g., within a digital profile card), to additional users of the dating service for whom the user has been selected as a potential dating match. Additionally, the digital dating profiles of the additional users may be presented to the user (e.g., where each digital dating profile is presented in a different digital profile card).” Furthermore, as cited in Fig. 11 and ¶ [0060] “In some examples, a shareable dating profile creation process may enable user 206 to easily create shareable versions of user 206's dating profile that are configured for multiple different social media channels. FIG. 11 depicts an exemplary creation flow that may be initiated from a dating profile editor interface 1100 by selecting a share element 1102. A selection of share element 1102 via user input may surface a share interface 1104 that includes multiple different channels to which the shareable version of user 206's dating profile may be shared. A selection of a channel may be configured to trigger media module 212 to (1) generate a shareable version of user 206's dating profile that corresponds to the selected channel and/or (2) share the generated shareable version of user 206's dating profile to the selected channel.”);
receiving an input from the seeker (i.e. receiving an accept or reject selection from dater) (Gulati: ¶ [0039] “Upon presenting a user with a potential dating match via an interface of a dating application, the dating service may enable the user to digitally accept or reject the potential dating match. If the user digitally accepts a potential dating match corresponding to an additional user who has also accepted the user as a potential dating match (a mutual match), both users may be notified of the same.”);
determining a potential interest of the seeker, at least in part based on the interest of the target (i.e. determining a common interest between the dater and the dater’s dating matches) (Gulati: ¶ [0017] “In some examples, the dating-analytics dashboard may include a common interests section that shows interests of the dater that overlap with interests of the dater's dating matches ( e.g., 80% of accepted matches have cats as a common interest, 20% have surfacing as a common interest, etc.” Furthermore, as cited in ¶ [0047] “For example, media module 212 may (1) determine a percentage of user 206's dating matches (e.g., all matches recommended by social media platform 208, matches accepted by user 206, and/or mutual matches) that share a particular interest with user 206 and (2) provide the determined percentage as part of information 224 presented within dashboard 222 (e.g., within a common interests section such as common interests section 900 presented in FIG. 9).”);
determining an existing interest of the seeker (i.e. determining interests of the user or the dater) (Gulati: ¶ [0017] “In some examples, the dating-analytics dashboard may include a common interests section that shows interests of the dater that overlap with interests of the dater's dating matches ( e.g., 80% of accepted matches have cats as a common interest, 20% have surfacing as a common interest, etc.” Furthermore, as cited in ¶ [0047] “For example, media module 212 may (1) determine a percentage of user 206's dating matches (e.g., all matches recommended by social media platform 208, matches accepted by user 206, and/or mutual matches) that share a particular interest with user 206 and (2) provide the determined percentage as part of information 224 presented within dashboard 222 (e.g., within a common interests section such as common interests section 900 presented in FIG. 9).”);
determining that the potential interest is an additional interest of the seeker (Gulati: ¶ [0017] “In some examples, the dating-analytics dashboard may include a common interests section that shows interests of the dater that overlap with interests of the dater's dating matches ( e.g., 80% of accepted matches have cats as a common interest, 20% have surfacing as a common interest, etc.” Furthermore, as cited in ¶ [0047] “For example, media module 212 may (1) determine a percentage of user 206's dating matches (e.g., all matches recommended by social media platform 208, matches accepted by user 206, and/or mutual matches) that share a particular interest with user 206 and (2) provide the determined percentage as part of information 224 presented within dashboard 222 (e.g., within a common interests section such as common interests section 900 presented in FIG. 9).”); and
adding the potential interest of the seeker to a profile of the seeker in the online dating service, at least in part based on the input (i.e. more interests are added to the user’s profile in order to reach a broader audience) (Gulati: Element 900 in Fig. 9 and ¶ [0047] “For example, media module 212 may (1) determine a percentage of user 206's dating matches (e.g., all matches recommended by social media platform 208, matches accepted by user 206, and/or mutual matches) that share a particular interest with user 206 and (2) provide the determined percentage as part of information 224 presented within dashboard 222 (e.g., within a common interests section such as common interests section 900 presented in FIG. 9).” Furthermore, as cited in Fig. 11 and ¶ [0060] “In some examples, a shareable dating profile creation process may enable user 206 to easily create shareable versions of user 206's dating profile that are configured for multiple different social media channels. FIG. 11 depicts an exemplary creation flow that may be initiated from a dating profile editor interface 1100 by selecting a share element 1102. A selection of share element 1102 via user input may surface a share interface 1104 that includes multiple different channels to which the shareable version of user 206's dating profile may be shared. A selection of a channel may be configured to trigger media module 212 to (1) generate a shareable version of user 206's dating profile that corresponds to the selected channel and/or (2) share the generated shareable version of user 206's dating profile to the selected channel.”).
With respect to Claims 27 and 34:
All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected to claim 21. Claim 27 recites “A non-transitory, computer-readable medium encoded with executable instructions that, when executed by a processing unit, perform operations comprising:” (Gulati: ¶ [0091]) the steps of method claim 21. Claim 34 recites “An apparatus, comprising: a memory that stores an instruction; and at least one processor configured to execute the instruction to cause the apparatus to at least cause” (Gulati: ¶ [0091]) the steps of method claim 21. Claims 27 and 34 do not teach or define any new limitations beyond claim 21. Therefore they are rejected under the same rationale.
With respect to Claim 22:
Gulati teaches:
The method of Claim 21, further comprising: prompting the seeker to confirm the additional interest (i.e. asking user if they would like to add the more interests such as dogs, concerts, food, surfing, etc.) (Gulati: Element 900 in Fig. 9 and ¶ [0047] “For example, media module 212 may (1) determine a percentage of user 206's dating matches (e.g., all matches recommended by social media platform 208, matches accepted by user 206, and/or mutual matches) that share a particular interest with user 206 and (2) provide the determined percentage as part of information 224 presented within dashboard 222 (e.g., within a common interests section such as common interests section 900 presented in FIG. 9).”).
With respect to Claims 28 and 35:
All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected to claim 22. Claims 28 and 35 do not teach or define any new limitations beyond claim 22. Therefore they are rejected under the same rationale.
With respect to Claim 23:
Gulati teaches:
The method of Claim 21, wherein the determining the potential interest of the seeker includes: determining an on-screen portion of the profile of the target (i.e. determining viewing pane of profile for match or target) (Gulati: ¶ [0028] “A newsfeed post may also display a text-based caption, metadata content ( e.g., content describing users that have been tagged in the newsfeed post, a timestamp, etc.), information indicating the source of the newsfeed post ( e.g., the name of the creator of the post, a profile image, etc.), and/or a digital special effect ( e.g., a digital sticker, a filter, an augmented reality element, etc.). Such information and/or features may be displayed (and/or a menu corresponding to such information and/or features may be displayed) within the viewing pane (e.g., over the primary content), within the viewing pane and/or may be visually associated with the viewing pane (e.g., displayed beneath the viewing pane).”); and
determining a selected portion of the profile of the target regarding the on-screen portion (i.e. determining user selected/accepted profile of match/target) (Gulati: ¶ [0058] “In one embodiment, the profile card may include a feature (e.g., such as the accepting or rejecting elements presenting in FIG. 8) that enables the additional user to accept or reject user 206 as a potential dating match. In one example, a selection of the link from an additional user who has a dating account with dating application 210 may additionally trigger a profile card of the additional user to be added to a queue of recommended dating matches presented to user 206.”).
With respect to Claims 29 and 36:
All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected to claim 23. Claims 29 and 36 do not teach or define any new limitations beyond claim 23. Therefore they are rejected under the same rationale.
With respect to Claim 24:
Gulati teaches:
The method of Claim 21, wherein the determining the potential interest of the seeker includes: determining a previous, off-screen portion of the profile of the target (Examiner notes that “off-screen” is described in the Applicant’s specification in ¶¶ [00113]-[00115] as portions of the profile that have not been viewed yet or at all) (i.e. determining interests such as overlapping location, mutual friends, common age range, which are off-screen portions of the profile that are not viewable from the profile card) (Gulati: Figs. 8 and 9 and ¶ [0048] “As another example, media module 212 may (1) identify locations and/or ages associated with user 206's dating matches (e.g., all matches recommended by social media platform 208, matches accepted by user 206, and/or mutual matches) and (2) provide the locations within a matches-locations summary, and/or the ages within a matches-ages summary, as part of information 224 provided within dashboard 222 (e.g., within a locations summary section such as location summary section 902 in FIG. 9 and/or an age summary section such as age summary section 904 in FIG. 9.”).
With respect to Claims 30 and 37:
All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected to claim 24. Claims 30 and 37 do not teach or define any new limitations beyond claim 24. Therefore they are rejected under the same rationale.
With respect to Claim 26:
Gulati teaches:
The method of Claim 21, wherein the determining the potential interest of the seeker includes: determining an unseen, off-screen portion of the profile of the target (Examiner notes that “off-screen” is described in the Applicant’s specification in ¶¶ [00113]-[00115] as portions of the profile that have not been viewed yet or at all) (i.e. determining interests such as overlapping location, mutual friends, common age range, which are off-screen portions of the profile that are not viewable from the profile card) (Gulati: Figs. 8 and 9 and ¶ [0048] “As another example, media module 212 may (1) identify locations and/or ages associated with user 206's dating matches (e.g., all matches recommended by social media platform 208, matches accepted by user 206, and/or mutual matches) and (2) provide the locations within a matches-locations summary, and/or the ages within a matches-ages summary, as part of information 224 provided within dashboard 222 (e.g., within a locations summary section such as location summary section 902 in FIG. 9 and/or an age summary section such as age summary section 904 in FIG. 9.”).
With respect to Claims 32 and 39:
All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected to claim 26. Claims 32 and 39 do not teach or define any new limitations beyond claim 26. Therefore they are rejected under the same rationale.
With respect to Claims 33 and 40:
All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected to claim 21. Claims 33 and 40 do not teach or define any new limitations beyond claim 21. Therefore they are rejected under the same rationale.
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) 25, 31, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gulati in view of U.S. Publication 2011/0072085 to Standley.
With respect to Claim 25:
Gulati does not explicitly disclose the method of Claim 21, wherein the determining the potential interest of the seeker includes: performing image recognition on an image displayed in the on-screen portion of the profile of the target.
However, Standley further discloses performing image recognition on an image displayed in the on-screen portion of the profile of the target (i.e. apply image recognition on photo of profile of user A/B based on user providing input of image) (Standley: ¶ [0125] “The ability of the AI and NNS systems to recognize images of people can be used to train the system as to what a particular user looks like by providing several different photographs of the user, provided either directly or taken obtained from a pre-stored database, such as a social networking database. These images can be used to build up an impression of what that user looks like to the system. This can be extremely helpful in the matching process. Rather than providing a description of the event, a user A may simply provide an image of user B. The matching system may then identify the associated user from the database and await for user B to confirm that they are looking for user A.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to add Standley’s performing image recognition on an image displayed in the on-screen portion of the profile of the target to Gulati’s adding the potential interest of the seeker to a profile of the seeker. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order “to allow people who have experienced a mutual feeling, but for fear of rejection did not take advantage of the opportunity, to establish contact.” (Standley: ¶ [0007]).
With respect to Claims 31 and 38:
All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected to claim 25. Claims 31 and 38 do not teach or define any new limitations beyond claim 25. Therefore they are rejected under the same rationale.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments see page 7 of the Remarks disclosed, filed on 12/10/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection(s) of claim(s) 28 and 35 have been considered and are persuasive. The Applicant asserts “Claims 28 and 35 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) as indefinite. Without addressing the propriety of that rejection, those claims have been amended to address the matter noted at page 2 of the Office Action by Primary Examiner Ansari. Accordingly, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §112 should be withdrawn.” The Examiner agrees and therefore, the rejection(s) of claim(s) 28 and 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments see pages 7-9 of the Remarks disclosed, filed on 12/10/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection(s) of claim(s) 21-40 have been considered but are not persuasive. The Applicant asserts “In particular, in its Step 2A, Prong I, analysis, the Office Action first proffered that all elements of previous Claim 21 were a method of organizing human activity of to determine interests and add said interests "managing interaction between people to a profile." Office Action at 3-4. Even assuming the Office proposed a proper abstract idea, the Office Action did not properly identify additional claim elements not directed to that abstract idea. For example, it is not necessarily the case that "managing to determine interests" is performed by "displaying a interaction between people profile of a target to a seeker," as recited in previous Claim 21. Accordingly, "displaying a profile of a target to a seeker" is an additional element in Step 2A, Prong I, and is therefore eligible for consideration in Step 2A, Prong II, and Step 2B. In fact, the Office Action did not perform any analysis as to whether the elements in the body of Claim 21 were directed to the abstract idea or not: the Office simply asserted those elements were directed to the abstract idea and, thus, not eligible as additional elements. The eligibility rejection should be clarified at least for that reason. Further, with respect to the mental process grouping, the Office failed to distinguish between the asserted processes and the elements actually recited in the claims. For example, the Office failed to distinguish between "displaying data," generally, and "displaying a profile of a target to a seeker," specifically. In this example, the specific data being displayed (e.g., "a profile of a target") is eligible as an additional element. Indeed, the Office's analysis fell short in this capacity with regard to all elements of Claim 21. The eligibility rejection should be clarified at least for this additional reason.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claims 21, 27, and 34 recite limitations directed to the abstract idea including displaying a profile of a target to a seeker, the profile of the target including an interest of the target; receiving an input from the seeker; determining a potential interest of the seeker, at least in part based on the interest of the target; determining an existing interest of the seeker; determining that the potential interest is an additional interest of the seeker; and adding the potential interest of the seeker to a profile of the seeker, at least in part based on the input. These further limitations are not seen as any more than the judicial exception. A method of adding potential interest of a seeker to a profile of the seeker based on input is considered to be an abstract idea, specifically, certain methods of organizing human activity; such as managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) because the claims are directed to managing interaction between people such as a target and seeker in order to determine interests and add said interests to a profile. Furthermore, the method of adding potential interest of a seeker to a profile of the seeker is considered to fall under another abstract idea, specifically, Mental Processes; such as concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) because the claims are directed to displaying data (i.e. profile of a target), receiving data (i.e. input from seeker), determining data (i.e. potential interest of seeker), determining data (i.e. existing interest of seeker), determining data (i.e. potential interest is additional interest); and adding data to a profile (i.e. adding potential interest of seeker to profile of seeker). Claims 21, 27, and 34 also recite additional limitations including “in an online dating service”. These additional limitations are seen as merely using an apparatus and computer-readable medium to describe the environment in which the abstract idea takes place which is seen as additional elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process. These are not found to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they are seen as adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f), adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g), and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h). Accordingly, alone, and in combination, these additional elements are seen as using a computer or tool to perform an abstract idea, adding insignificant-extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. They do no more than link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, i.e. online dating service, and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The courts decided that although the additional elements did limit the use of the abstract idea, the court explained that this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and this fails to add an inventive concept to the claims (See Affinity Labs of Texas v. DirecTV, LLC,). Therefore, the rejection(s) of claim(s) 21-40 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained above with an updated analysis.
Applicant’s arguments see pages 9-10 of the Remarks disclosed, filed on 12/10/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) rejection(s) of claim(s) 21-24, 26-30, 32-37, 39, and 40 over Gulati with claims 25, 31, and 38 being rejected in further view of Standley have been considered but are not persuasive. The Applicant asserts “Gulati describes adding an interest from another of a user's profiles to the user's platform-specific profile. Gulati, para. [0053]. In rejecting previous Claim 21, the Office Action relied on paras. [0017] and [0047] of Gulati as describing the last four elements of previous Claim 21. Office Action at 8-9. Those paragraphs do not relate specifically to the dating profile of the user. Gulati does not disclose or suggest "determining a potential interest of [a] seeker, and adding the potential interest of at least in part based on the interest of the target; the seeker to a profile of the seeker in the online dating service," as recited in amended Claim 21.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner would like to refer the Applicant to Fig. 11 and ¶ [0060] of the Gulati reference; “In some examples, a shareable dating profile creation process may enable user 206 to easily create shareable versions of user 206's dating profile that are configured for multiple different social media channels. FIG. 11 depicts an exemplary creation flow that may be initiated from a dating profile editor interface 1100 by selecting a share element 1102. A selection of share element 1102 via user input may surface a share interface 1104 that includes multiple different channels to which the shareable version of user 206's dating profile may be shared. A selection of a channel may be configured to trigger media module 212 to (1) generate a shareable version of user 206's dating profile that corresponds to the selected channel and/or (2) share the generated shareable version of user 206's dating profile to the selected channel.” Therefore, the rejection(s) of claim(s) 21-24, 26-30, 32-37, 39, and 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) is provided above with updated citations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. The following reference are cited to further show the state of the art:
U.S. Publication 2021/0065314 to Storment for disclosing a social networking system and method; and, more particularly, a system for providing dating services, the method based on using a graphical user interface presenting information and novel selection methodologies to determine a suitable match. The graphical user interface may provide mini-games that display a plurality of profiles to keep a user entertained through the selection method of determining a suitable match. The social networking system further facilitating an in-person meeting in a safe environment.
U.S. Publication 2007/0220045 to Morris for disclosing A media discovery module (MDM) is described that facilitates a user's access to desired media items. The MDM presents a series of arrays of media items to the user. The user's selection within any array governs the composition of media items that are presented in a subsequent array. Different linking criteria can define the relationship among arrays. In one case, the MDM uses a time-based linking criterion, allowing a user to examine a media item at increasing levels of temporal granularity. In another case, the MDM uses a subject matter-based criterion, allowing a user to examine one or more media items at increasing levels of detail with respect to a subject matter index. The MDM can employ various tools to establish the relationship among media items, including image analysis tools, audio analysis tools, metadata analysis tools, and so on.
U.S. Publication 2022/0261853 to Publicover for disclosing Targeted Content solutions can be provided using a variety of techniques. Targeted Content can be provided in place of generic advertisements on a first device or on personal computing devices. Targeted Content can be presented during, or in place of, generic advertisements in Content (e.g., television content, streaming content, etc.). Targeted Content can be provided in individual and/or group environments. In a group environment, Users and/or Devices can be grouped into a shared advertising group and Targeted Content can be selected based on Profiles of one or more members of the group. Feedback can be received regarding Targeted Content and payout amount can be determined.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Azam Ansari, whose telephone number is (571) 272-7047. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 8 AM and 4:30 PM.
If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Waseem Ashraf, can be reached at (571) 270-3948.
Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR). Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pairdirect.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule either an in-person or a telephonic interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
/AZAM A ANSARI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621
January 8, 2026
Prosecution Insights