DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The amendment filed on March 20, 2026 has been entered. The following has occurred: Claims 1, 10, and 11 have been amended; Claims 12-15 are newly added.
Claims 1-15 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
Claim Objections have been withdrawn in light of the corrected claims.
New Claim Objections have been added in light of the amendment.
Specification Objection has been added.
35 U.S.C. 101 rejection has been maintained in light of the amendment.
35 U.S.C. 112(d) rejection has been added in light of the amendment.
35 U.S.C. 102 rejection has been maintained in light of the amendment.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: “method of claim 11” should read “computer system of claim 11” or “method of claim 1” (bold emphasis included). Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: page 9 recites “weed” should read “week”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 7 recites “computing device is geolocation-enabled” is same as the claim 1 amended limitation, “geolocation-enabled computing device” The dependent claim 7 does not further narrow the limitations of the independent claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? (MPEP 2106.03)
In the present application, claims 1-9 and 12-15 are directed to a method (i.e., a process), claim 10 is directed to another method (i.e., a process), and claim 11 is directed to a system (i.e., a machine). Thus, the eligibility analysis proceeds to Step 2A. prong one.
Step 2A. prong one: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? (MPEP 2106.04)
While claims 1 and 11 are directed to different categories, the language and scope are substantially the same and have been addressed together. The abstract idea recited in claims 1 and 11 is
providing or obtaining a collection of feedbacks, each feedback including or tagged with a geographical location and a time of creation;
receiving a user query to search feedbacks having geographical locations falling within a defined geographical search area and having time of creation that meets a recency criteria;
determining one or more feedbacks in the collection of feedbacks that are responsive to the user query and computing a count of the responsive feedbacks within the defined geographical search area; and
displaying the determined one or more responsive feedbacks and the computed count of the responsive feedbacks.
The abstract idea recited in claim 10 is
a first user creating a first feedback about a first target of interest having a location information while the first user is located at the location of the first target;
determining the geographical location of the first computing device at the creation of the first feedback as the location of the first feedback;
sending the first feedback including the location of the first feedback;
storing the first feedback with the location of the first feedback, as well as the time of receiving the first feedback, in a feedback database;
a second user creating a second feedback about a second target of interest having a location information while the second user is located at the location of the second target, the second target being the same as or different from the first target;
determining the geographical location of the second computing device at the creation of the second feedback as the location of the second feedback;
sending the second feedback including the location of the second feedback;
storing the second feedback with the location of the second feedback, as well as the time of receiving the second feedback, in the feedback database;
receiving a query of a third user to search for feedbacks that have locations falling within a geographical search area defined by the third user and created at a time that meets a recency requirement relative to the time of the query is received;
sending the user query;
determining one or more feedbacks responsive to the user query and computing a count of the responsive feedbacks within the defined geographical search area;
sending the one or more responsive feedbacks and the computed count to the third (user); and displaying the responsive one or more feedbacks and the computed count of the responsive feedback.
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of providing feedbacks information based on geographic location and timeliness.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, without the recitation of additional elements, the limitations above suggest a process similar to collecting information (steps [A, B, E, G, I, K, M, N, P]) and analyzing/determining the information (steps [C, F, J, O]). Because the limitations above closely follow the steps of collecting information and analyzing the collected information, and the steps involved human judgements, observations, and evaluations that can be practically or reasonably performed in the human mind, the claims recite an abstract idea consistent with the “mental processes” grouping of the abstract ideas, set forth in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Additionally and alternatively, the same claim limitations above recite a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce in the form of advertising, marketing, or sales activity of commercial industry. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, other than the additional elements of computer components, the above-mentioned limitations recite a process similar to people sought out timely and local recommendations, which a traveler in a new town can ask a local resident or check community bulletin board that serves as a collection of feedback (e.g., flyers for events, services, advertisement, etc.), each provided with location address and date, which the person can manually search and filter based on their current preference or need. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea consistent with the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of the abstract ideas, set forth in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Accordingly, the above-mentioned limitations are considered as a single abstract idea, therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea and the analysis proceeds to Step 2A. prong two.
Step 2A. prong two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? (MPEP 2106.04)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely add instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer.
The additional elements considered include:
Claim 1: “at a geolocation-enabled computing device;” “using at least one computer processor;” and “on a user interface of the computing device.”
Claim 10: “using a first computing device;” “server;” “using a second computing device;” “using a third computing device,” “using a search engine, and from the feedback database, the server;” “on a user interface.”
Claim 11: “computer system comprising a memory, one or more processors, and computer-readable instructions operative, when executed, to cause the one or more processors to:” “at a computing device,” “a user interface of the computing device.”
In particular, the claim only recites the above-mentioned additional elements to provide, obtain, receive, determine, send, store, and display information. The computer in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing a generic computer function; See Applicant’s Specification at least at page 4 line 27 - page 7 line 8 reciting generic computing components) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“[A]fter Alice, there can remain no doubt: recitation of generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible.”).
That is, the function of limitations [A]-[P] are steps of 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 as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional element(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not improve a computer or other technology, do not transform a particular article, do not recite more than a general link to a computer, and do not invoke the computer in any meaningful way; the general computer is effectively part of the preamble instruction to “apply” the exception by the computer. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea and the analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? (MPEP 2106.05)
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the bold portions of the limitations recited above, were all considered to be an abstract idea in Step2A-Prong Two. The additional elements and analysis of Step2A-Prong two is carried over. For the same reason, these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. Applicant has merely recited elements that instruct the user to apply the abstract idea to a computer or other machinery. When considered individually and in combination the conclusion, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer to perform the above-mentioned limitations [A]-[P] amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the function of the limitations to the exception using generic computer component, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept for providing feedbacks information based on geographic location and timeliness. Thus, viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. For these reasons there is no inventive concept in the claims and thus are ineligible.
As for dependent claims 2-9, these claims recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1. The claims further recite additional abstract steps and description information for displaying, determining, and ranking information, which do not change the abstract idea of the independent claim. The claims recite the additional element of computer components at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer system performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
In summary, the dependent claims considered both individually and as ordered combination do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Rathod (WO 2018104834 A1).
Claims 1 and 11, Rathod discloses a computer-implemented method (abstract) and computer system comprising a memory, one or more processors, and computer-readable instructions operative, when executed, to cause the one or more processors (a computing device comprising instructions carried on a computer-readable medium executable by a processor; page 53, line 24-page 54, line 12); the method and system comprising:
providing or obtaining a collection of feedbacks, each feedback including or tagged with a geographical location and a time of creation (users tagging a photo or video and metadata including location, date and time, and comments (first feedback) of an event; page 73, line 28-page 74, line 20; page 104, lines 15-20);
receiving, at a geolocation-enabled computing device (user device locations are based on a GPS sensor; page 11, line 30; page 12, line 19; page 268, line 29-page 269, line 22), a user query to search feedbacks having geographical locations falling within a defined geographical search area and having time of creation that meets a recency criteria (receiving a request from User-3 for searching (query) and matching specific posted contents, comments and recommendations, the query including a specific location or address on a map (defined geographical search area) and a time range when visual media was posted (recency criteria); fig 1; page 75, lines 27-32; page 104, lines 5-11; page 105, lines 14-17; page 299, lines 23-34);
determining, using at least one computer processor, one or more feedbacks in the collection of feedbacks that are responsive to the user query, and computing a count of the responsive feedbacks within the defined geographical search area (a search engine searching and matching (determining) user generated content at the server database for comments and feedbacks; page 32, lines 9-28; page 39 line 28-page 40, line 30; page 104, line 23; page 105 line 24. “user’s current location…. User can view total number of searched or matched sequences of visual media items… at user interface” page 108 lines 20-25); and
displaying the determined one or more responsive feedbacks on a user interface of the computing device (the user/mobile device 200 can select a presentation style for the search results that include comments, reviews or feedback; page 104, lines 3-6; page 105 lines 2-6; page 109, lines 17-23; page 268, line 29-page 269, line 22. “User can view total number of searched or matched sequences of visual media items… at user interface” page 108 lines 20-25).
Claim 2, Rathod discloses the method of claim 1. Rathod further discloses,
wherein the computing device includes a user interface comprising a map view, and wherein the displaying comprises displaying the location information of the one or more determined responsive feedbacks on the map view (the user can select from a map to search and display commented items; page 19, lines 18-20 and Fig. 69; page 104, lines 5-15; page 108, line 23-page 109, line 8).
Claim 3, Rathod discloses the method of claim 1. Rathod further discloses,
wherein the computing device includes a user interface comprising a map view, and the geographical search area is selected by the user on the map view (page 19 lines 18-20, “enables user to search and present location on map or navigate map to select location”; Fig. 69 is an exemplary UI showing a map-based search; the user can select from a map with intention to search; page 104, lines 5-15).
Claim 4, Rathod discloses the method of claim 1. Rathod further discloses,
wherein the geographical search area is determined based on a current location of the computing device (the search area is based on the current location; page 104, lines 5-15).
Claim 5, Rathod discloses the method of claim 1. Rathod further discloses,
wherein the determining further comprises ranking the one or more responsive feedbacks (the user selects a send request to identify ranked visual media; the search engine searches and matches user generated content for comments and feedbacks; page 32, lines 9-28; page 39 line 28-page 40, line 30; page 64, lines 17-29; page 105, lines 33-34).
Claim 6, Rathod discloses the method of claim 1. Rathod further discloses,
where in the location of each feedback of the collection of feedbacks is obtained through geolocation (comments, reviews and feedbacks of user's activities are based on determined geolocation; page 11, line 30; page 12, line 19; page 268, line 29-page 269, line 34).
Claim 7, Rathod discloses the method of claim 1. Rathod further discloses,
wherein the computing device is geolocation-enabled (user device locations are based on a GPS sensor; page 11, line 30; page 12, line 19; page 268, line 29-page 269, line 22).
Claim 8, Rathod discloses the method of claim 1. Rathod further discloses,
wherein the search area is defined by use preferences preset by the user on the computing device (user searches include preferences and rules (preset) for searching; page 63, line 24-page 64, line 15; Fig. 14 shows a detailed UI for setting “Categories/Keywords Follow Preferences”).
Claim 9, Rathod discloses the method of claim 1. Rathod further discloses,
further comprising filtering the determined one or more feedbacks according to preset user preferences (search results of commented contents are filtered according to the user preferences; page 63, line 24-page 64, line 15; page 66, line 19-page 67, line 15; Fig. 10 shows numerous filters like “Age Range,” “Gender,” “School”).
Claim 10, Rathod discloses a computer-implemented method (abstract) comprising:
using a first computing device, a first user creating a first feedback about a first target of interest having a location information while the first user is located at the location of the first target (using a mobile device 130, user-1 (first) creating an event at a particular place (first target of interest) associated with a geolocation, and recommends (feedback) the point of interest; fig 1 illustrates a system with multiple mobile devices (130, 135, 140) for multiple users (User-1, User-2, User-N); page 12, lines 18-23; page 73, line 28-page 74, line 20; page 74, line 26-page 75, line 20; page 85, line 13-18; page 307, line 31-page 308, line 11);
determining, using the first computing device, the geographical location of the first computing device at the creation of the first feedback as the location of the first feedback (determining the current geolocation of the user mobile device 130 at the user created event and recommendation/comments; page 73, line 28- page 74, line 20; page 84, line 32-page 85, line 2, 15-18; page 307, line 31-page 308, line 11);
sending the first feedback including the location of the first feedback to a server (uploading a photo or video and metadata including location and comments (first feedback) of the event to a server; Fig. 1 shows server (11) connected to a database (115) for storage; page 73, line 28-page 74, line 20; page 75, lines 30-32; page 104, lines 5-17;);
at the server, storing the first feedback with the location of the first feedback, as well as the time of receiving the first feedback, in a feedback database (storing the event comments and time at the current location at the server in a database; page 234, lines 10-19; page 235, lines 14-19);
using a second computing device, a second user creating a second feedback about a second target of interest having a location information while the second user is located at the location of the second target, the second target being the same as or different from the first target (using a mobile device 135, user-2 (second) creating an event/events at a particular place/check-in places (second target of interest) associated with a geolocation, and recommends (feedback) the point of interest; fig 1; page 73, line 28-page 74, line 20; page 74, line 26 -page 75, line 20; page 75, lines 14-20; page 85, lines 13-17; page 307, line 31-page 308, line11; note: the events and check-in places define the second target being different from the first target);
determining, using the second computing device, the geographical location of the second computing device at the creation of the second feedback as the location of the second feedback (determining the current geolocation of the user mobile device 135 at the user created event; page 73, line 28-page 74, line 20; page 84, line 32-page 85, line 2);
sending the second feedback including the location of the second feedback to the server (uploading a photo or video and metadata including location and comments of the event to a server; page 73, line 28-page 74, line 20; page 103, lines 19-23);
at the server, storing the second feedback with the location of the second feedback, as well as the time of receiving the second feedback, in the feedback database (storing the event comments and time at the current location at the server in a database; page 235, lines 14-19; page 234, lines 10-19);
receiving, using a third computing device, a query of a third user to search for feedbacks that have locations falling within a geographical search area defined by the third user and created at a time that meets a recency requirement relative to the time of the query is received (receiving, by mobile device 200 (third) a request from User-3 for searching (query) and matching specific posted contents, comments and recommendations, the query including a specific location or address on a map (defined by the third user) and a time range when visual media was posted (recency requirement); fig 1; page 75, lines 27-32; page 104, lines 5-11; page 105, lines 14-17; page 299, lines 23-34);
the third computing device sending the user query to the server (the mobile device 200 sends the search to the server to execute; page 105, line 31-page 106, line 7);
using a search engine, and from the feedback database, the server determining one or more feedbacks responsive to the user query and computing a count of the responsive feedbacks within the defined geographical search area (a search engine searches and matches (determining) user generated content at the server database for comments and feedbacks; page 32, lines 9-28; page 39 line 28-page 40, line 30. “User’s current location…. User can view total number of searched or matched sequences of visual media items… at user interface” page 108 lines 20-25);
the server sending the one or more responsive feedbacks and the computed count to the third computing device (the comments/feedbacks are presented to the user; page 39 line 28-page 40, line 30; page 75, lines 25-27; “User can view total number of searched or matched sequences of visual media items… at user interface” page 108 lines 20-25); and
the third computing device displaying the responsive one or more feedbacks and the computed count of the responsive feedbacks on a user interface (the user/mobile device 200 can select a presentation style for the search results that include comments, reviews or feedback; page 109, lines 17-23; page 268, line 29-page 269, line 22; and Fig. 10. “User can view total number of searched or matched sequences of visual media items… at user interface” page 108 lines 20-25).
Claim 12, Rathod discloses the method of claim 1. Rathod further discloses,
wherein the recency criteria is automatically applied by the at least one computer processor relative to the time at which the user query is received (The Office interprets the claim limitation in light of the specification in page 9, “the recency of the feedbacks can be used as one mandatory explicit search parameter, or it can be set as a default search parameter that is always used in a search without an active selection, e.g., saved as a user preference in a user profile. In an example, unless the recency of a feedback is less than a predetermined threshold (e.g., a feedback is less than 1 weed old, 1 month old, etc.) it will be excluded in the search results.” The recency criteria is automatically applied is by default search parameter. Rathod teaches the same rule-based searches in page 107 lines 3-9 “auto present next after pre-set duration of interval expires 1123 and further filters based on one or more types of user data and execute selected or pre-stored one or more rules from rule base and selected or provided one or more filter criteria including one or more keywords, key phases, Boolean operators, advance search options including creation or posting date”).
Claim 13, Rathod discloses the method of claim 11. Rathod further discloses,
wherein the recency criteria is applied without requiring user specification of a date or time range (The Office interprets the claim limitation in light of the specification in page 9, “the recency of the feedbacks can be used as one mandatory explicit search parameter, or it can be set as a default search parameter that is always used in a search without an active selection, e.g., saved as a user preference in a user profile. In an example, unless the recency of a feedback is less than a predetermined threshold (e.g., a feedback is less than 1 weed old, 1 month old, etc.) it will be excluded in the search results.” The recency criteria is automatically applied is by default search parameter. Rathod teaches the same rule-based searches in page 107 lines 3-9 “auto present next after pre-set duration of interval expires 1123 and further filters based on one or more types of user data and execute selected or pre-stored one or more rules from rule base and selected or provided one or more filter criteria including one or more keywords, key phases, Boolean operators, advance search options including creation or posting date”).
Claim 14, Rathod discloses the method of claim 1. Rathod further discloses,
wherein the determining further comprises filtering the one or more responsive feedbacks by a popularity indicator of the one or more responsive feedbacks (page 105 lines 33-34, the user can provide criteria to search for the “most viewed 10557, most ranked 1060, and most liked 1058”).
Claim 15, Rathod discloses the method of claim 14. Rathod further discloses,
wherein the popularity indicator is selected from one of star rating, post frequency, and validation of the one or more responsive feedbacks (page 14 line 29, receiving user reactions “like dislike, rating, emoticons”. These reactions are used to generate popularity indicators).
Response to Remarks
35 U.S.C. 101 Rejection:
The Applicant’s remarks are fully considered, however are found to be unpersuasive.
Per remarks on pages 8-11, it appears that applicant’s analysis has conflated the abstract idea, considered at Step 2A Prong One, with the additional elements, considered at Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B. Here, examiner identified the following steps as part of the abstract idea: providing, obtaining collection of feedbacks each tagged with geographical location and time of creation; receiving user query specifying a geographic search; determining feedbacks of the collection and counts of in responsive to the query; and presenting the information. The computer, memory, processor, geolocation-enabled computing device, etc. are considered additional elements, which are merely facilitating the tasks of said abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(f) is clear that this generic recitation does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application and/or add significantly more. This interpretation holds whether the additional elements are viewed alone or in combination, where the combination of elements is nothing more than a network-enabled computing system. (Examiner notes that the phrase "well-understood, routine, and conventional" was not used in the eligibility analysis. Instead, examiner relied on MPEP 2106.05(f), as explained above.) CyberSource Corp V. Retail Decisions, Inc. is a court case example for a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper” to be an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III); and not found to be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception under MPEP 2106.05(g).
The Applicant fails to provide persuasive argument for the “improvement to other technology or technical field.” That is, as reflected in Enfish, there is a fundamental difference between computer functionality improvements (improvement of the technology or technical field), on the one hand, and uses of existing computers as tools to perform a particular task (collecting, analyzing, and displaying information), on the other. The alleged advantages that the Applicant touts do not concern an improvement to computer capabilities or any machinery but instead relate to an alleged improvement in transmitting, analyzing, and determining information for a desirable result, which a computer is used as a mere tool in its ordinary capacity, see MPEP 2106.05(f). To further clarify, in the Applicant’s specification page 1, “When people search for places to eat, things to do, or sights to see, they typically rely on traditional search engines or apps. However, these searches are often cumbersome and filled with incomplete or outdated results, requiring users to sift through irrelevant information. This can be frustrating, making it difficult to quickly find the most up-to-date and valuable recommendations.” The Applicant reflected a business need/reason of the abstract idea for the collecting and analyzing of nearby restaurants and reviews. The computer and software, itself is merely used “applied” for the expected result of convenience and time saving. The claims do not reflect an improvement to the technology of the computer functionalities other than by using the additional elements of the computer system, desired result can be produced without a doubt and concern to technological details for how it is accomplished. That is, the computer system itself or specific technology is not improved in anyway other than being applied as a tool/instrument for the judicial exception (abstract idea).
Thus, the 101 rejection is maintained.
35 U.S.C. 102 Rejection:
The Examiner asserts that the Applicant’s arguments are directed towards amended claim limitations and are, therefore, considered moot. However, the Examiner has responded to the amended amendments, which the arguments are directed to, in the rejection above, thereby addressing the applicant’s arguments.
The Examiner asserts Rathod in page 108 lines 20-25 indicates the user can view total number of matched at user interface, disclosing the amended claim limitation in claim 1.
Thus, the 102 rejection is maintained.
Relevant Prior Art Not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. The additional cited art, including but not limited to the excerpts below, further establishes the state of the art at the time of Applicant’s invention and shows the following was known:
Lior et al. (US 20150019523 A1) is directed to an event-based social networking system enables users of the system to create and schedule events, extend and respond to invitations, facilitate creation of albums of media memorializing the events and enabling members of the social network community to control sharing, viewing and commenting on media contained in the albums.
Jiang et al. (US 20090112467 A1) is directed to a map-centric service for creating, finding, and organizing social events is described. Social events may include gatherings, goods or services for sale or other types of events about which a group of people may wish to share information. The service provides a graphical indication of the location of a plurality of social events superimposed on a map, providing a geographic context to social events.
Ravi L, Vairavasundaram S. A Collaborative Location Based Travel Recommendation System through Enhanced Rating Prediction for the Group of Users. Comput Intell Neurosci. 2016;2016:1291358. doi: 10.1155/2016/1291358. Epub 2016 Mar 16.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 WENREN CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5208. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10AM - 6PM.
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 C Uber can be reached on (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.
/WENREN CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626