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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the filing of Patent Application 18924850 on 10/23/2024.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
1. 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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1 is/are drawn to method (i.e., a process), claim(s) 16 is/are drawn to a system (i.e., a machine/manufacture).
Claims 1-18 are directed to matching peoples/profiles. Specifically, the claims recite electronically receiving a plurality of user online friend profiles, each profile comprising traits of a respective user, the traits comprising individual or couple, age, gender, interests, communities, health and wellness goals, and location, wherein the age comprises an age range; electronically receiving a first request for identifying one or more of the user online friend profiles, the first request electronically submitted by a first user using a first electronic device; determining a set of potential connections from the plurality of user friend profiles for the first user in response to receiving the first request, wherein the determining comprises using an algorithm or computerized data alignment selection to identify users with similar or identical interests and characteristics including two or more of age range, gender, location, individual or couple, interests, communities, and health and wellness goals, the algorithm being designed around forming friendships and not adapted to identify romantic partners, and wherein the traits used in matching do not include information used to identify romantic partners such as height, sexual orientation, hair color or other physical attributes, body style or weight, or type of relationship sought; wherein the health and wellness goals are established via a graphical user interface displaying health and wellness goal categories in a wheel that can be rotated by the user to select one or more specific health and wellness goals by swiping the wheel; causing the display of a graphical representation of a first potential friend connection of the set of potential friend connections to the first user on a graphical user interface of the first electronic device, the first potential friend connection corresponding to a second user; determining that the first user expressed a positive preference indication regarding the first potential friend connection at least by determining that the first user performed an actuation of an accept button of the first potential friend connection on the graphical user interface; determining that the second user has expressed a positive preference indication regarding the first user after determining that the first user expressed the positive preference indication regarding the first potential friend connection; enabling initial communication between the first user and the second user in response to determining that both the first user has expressed the positive preference indication regarding the second user and the second user has expressed the positive preference indication regarding the first user; determining that the first user expressed a negative preference indication regarding a third potential friend connection of the set of potential friend connections by determining that the first user performed an actuation of a decline button of the third potential friend connection on the graphical user interface, the third potential friend connection corresponding to a third user; determining that the first user expressed a positive preference indication regarding a fourth potential friend connection of the set of potential connections at least by determining that the first user performed an actuation of an accept button up of the fourth potential friend connection on the graphical user interface, the fourth potential friend connection corresponding to a fourth user which is grouped within the Methods Of Organizing Human Activity and is similar to the concept of (fundamental economic principles or practices including hedging insurance, mitigating risk) OR (commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors business relations) OR (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities teaching, and following rules or instructions) OR Mental Processes and is similar to the concept of (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 54 (January 7, 2019)). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See pages 7, 10, Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., US Supreme Court, No. 13-298, June 19, 2014; 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 53-54 (January 7, 2019)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 54-55 (January 7, 2019)), the additional element(s) of the claim(s) such as non transitory computer medium merely use(s) a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or generally link(s) the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Specifically, the non transitory computer medium perform(s) the steps or functions of enabling communication concerning establishing a friend blast between the first user and the second user via a chat function integrated into the graphical user interface in response to determining that both the first user has expressed the positive preference indication regarding the second user and the second user has expressed the positive preference indication regarding the first user, the friend blast comprising a group activity invitation identifying a proposed activity, time, date, and location, wherein the second user is in a pool of friends of the first user, the pool of friends being an individualized data structure for the first user comprising users with whom the first user has established mutual positive preference indications, and wherein users receiving the friend blast can respond and coordinate participation in the activity via the chat function;enabling communication concerning establishing a carpool between the first user and the second user via the chat function in response to determining that both the first user has expressed the positive preference indication regarding the second user and the second user has expressed the positive preference indication regarding the first user, the carpool comprising a ride-sharing request identifying a time, date, location, and destination, sent to one or more users in the pool of friends of the first user, wherein users receiving the carpool request can respond and coordinate via the chat function; preventing communication between the first user and the third user after determining that the first user has expressed the negative preference indication regarding the third user; preventing communication between the first user and the fourth user, if applicable, after determining that the fourth user has expressed a negative preference indication regarding the first user.. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 56 (January 7, 2019)), the additional element(s) of using a non transitory computer medium to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of matching people. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, the non transitory computer medium perform(s) the steps or functions of enabling communication concerning establishing a friend blast between the first user and the second user via a chat function integrated into the graphical user interface in response to determining that both the first user has expressed the positive preference indication regarding the second user and the second user has expressed the positive preference indication regarding the first user, the friend blast comprising a group activity invitation identifying a proposed activity, time, date, and location, wherein the second user is in a pool of friends of the first user, the pool of friends being an individualized data structure for the first user comprising users with whom the first user has established mutual positive preference indications, and wherein users receiving the friend blast can respond and coordinate participation in the activity via the chat function;enabling communication concerning establishing a carpool between the first user and the second user via the chat function in response to determining that both the first user has expressed the positive preference indication regarding the second user and the second user has expressed the positive preference indication regarding the first user, the carpool comprising a ride-sharing request identifying a time, date, location, and destination, sent to one or more users in the pool of friends of the first user, wherein users receiving the carpool request can respond and coordinate via the chat function; preventing communication between the first user and the third user after determining that the first user has expressed the negative preference indication regarding the third user; preventing communication between the first user and the fourth user, if applicable, after determining that the fourth user has expressed a negative preference indication regarding the first user.. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of matching people. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-15, 17-18 further describe the abstract idea of matching people. The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-16 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.
Regarding claim 1, 16, the limitations “user online friend profiles“ and “user friend profiles” is unclear as to whether these are referring to the same profiles or separate profiles.
Regarding claim 1, 16, the limitations “set of potential friend connections” and “set of potential connections”” is unclear as to whether these are referring to the same connections or separate connections. Either way there are antecedent basis issues.
Regarding claim 1, 16, the limitation the algorithm being designed around forming friendships and not adapted to identify romantic partners” is unclear what designed around and not adapted to would encompass. Essentially the metes and bounds of the limitation are not clear.
Regarding claim 1, 16, the limitation “wherein the traits used in matching do not include information used to identify romantic partners such as height, sexual orientation, hair color or other physical attributes, body style or weight, or type of relationship sought” is unclear if these information being matched only includes the mentioned characteristics or another characteristic because of the “such as” language. Essentially the metes and bounds of the limitation are not clear.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
A. Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A Prong One. As for Step 2A Prong One, of the Abstract idea is directed towards the abstract idea of matching peoples/profiles which is grouped within the Methods Of Organizing Human Activity and is similar to the concept of (fundamental economic principles or practices including hedging insurance, mitigating risk) OR (commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors business relations) OR (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities teaching, and following rules or instructions) OR Mental Processes and is similar to the concept of (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 54 (January 7, 2019)). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See pages 7, 10, Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., US Supreme Court, No. 13-298, June 19, 2014; 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 53-54 (January 7, 2019)).
B. Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A Prong Two. As for Step 2A Prong Two, the claim limitations do not include additional elements in the claim that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, and the claim is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception and the claim limitation simply describe the abstract idea. The limitation directed to matching peoples/profiles does not add technical improvement to the abstract idea. The recitations to “non transitory computer medium” perform(s) the steps or functions of enabling communication concerning establishing a friend blast between the first user and the second user via a chat function integrated into the graphical user interface in response to determining that both the first user has expressed the positive preference indication regarding the second user and the second user has expressed the positive preference indication regarding the first user, the friend blast comprising a group activity invitation identifying a proposed activity, time, date, and location, wherein the second user is in a pool of friends of the first user, the pool of friends being an individualized data structure for the first user comprising users with whom the first user has established mutual positive preference indications, and wherein users receiving the friend blast can respond and coordinate participation in the activity via the chat function;enabling communication concerning establishing a carpool between the first user and the second user via the chat function in response to determining that both the first user has expressed the positive preference indication regarding the second user and the second user has expressed the positive preference indication regarding the first user, the carpool comprising a ride-sharing request identifying a time, date, location, and destination, sent to one or more users in the pool of friends of the first user, wherein users receiving the carpool request can respond and coordinate via the chat function; preventing communication between the first user and the third user after determining that the first user has expressed the negative preference indication regarding the third user; preventing communication between the first user and the fourth user, if applicable, after determining that the fourth user has expressed a negative preference indication regarding the first user.. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
C. Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception under Step 2B.
As for Step 2B, The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 56 (January 7, 2019)), the limitation directed to matching peoples/profiles does not add significantly more to the abstract idea. Furthermore, using well-known computer functions to execute an abstract idea does not constitute significantly more. The recitations to “non transitory computer medium” are generically recited computer structure. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of matching peoples/profiles. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and located in the PTO-892 form.
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.
1.O’Kelley, U.S. Patent App 20060121990, teaches a matchmaking service that selects matches based on personal/social characteristics as well as skill and experience. The service takes into account direct feedback from other players about positive and negative experiences with a particular player and expectations about appropriate conduct and type of game being played before a player joins the game session.
2. Poon, U.S. Patent App 20130304727, teaches the present disclosure includes a method for social network management that includes receiving first network connectivity data associated with one or more posting user profiles, receiving posting content associated with one or more of the posting user profiles, receiving posing criteria associated with the posting content and at least one of the posting user profiles, generating a selective posting for at least one of the one or more posting user profiles, the selective posting having access or distribution properties different than a default posting and generated based on the posting criteria and the first network connectivity data and implementing the selective posting on at least one of the posting user profiles.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NINOS DONABED whose telephone number is (571)272-8757. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00pm - 4:00pm.
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, John Follansbee can be reached on (571) 272-3964. 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.
/NINOS DONABED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights