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 1-16 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 1-16 are directed to matching people. 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; 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; enabling communication concerning establishing a friend blast 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; enabling communication concerning establishing a carpool 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; and, 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 transitory computer 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 transitory computer perform(s) the steps or functions of 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 transitory computer 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 transitory computer perform(s) the steps or functions of 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 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, 10, 14, 16, the limitation “friend blast “ is unclear because it is not know what the metes and bounds of it would include.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 6-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rad (U.S. Patent App Pub 20140074824) in view of Borne (U.S. Patent App Pub 20050177614).
Regarding claim 1,
Rad teaches an implemented method of matching with one or more person with shared interests and/or health and wellness goals, comprising: 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; (See paragraphs 61-62, Rad)
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; (See paragraphs 61-62, Rad)
determining a set of potential connections from the plurality of user friend profiles for the first user in response to receiving the first request; (See paragraphs 85-86, Rad)
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; (See paragraphs 85-86, Rad)
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; (See paragraphs 96-98, Rad)
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; (See paragraphs 96-98, Rad)
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; (See paragraphs 96-98, Rad)
enabling communication concerning establishing a friend blast 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; (See paragraphs 90, 93, Rad)
enabling communication concerning establishing a carpool 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; (See paragraphs 90, 93, Rad)
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; (See paragraphs 75, 89, Rad)
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; (See paragraphs 75, 89, Rad)
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; and (See paragraphs 90, 93, Rad)
Rad does not explicitly teach but Bourne teaches 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.(See abstract, paragraphs 5, 19, Bourne)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have known to combine the teachings of Bourne with Rad because both deal with matchmaking. The advantage of incorporating the above limitation(s) of Bourne into Rad is that Bourbe enables to identify and introduce mobile device users to one another, efficiently, therefore making the overall system more robust and efficient. (See paragraphs [0004] - [0006], Bourne)
Regarding claim 2,
Rad and Bourne teach the computer implemented method of claim 1, further comprising determining that the first user expressed a positive preference indication regarding a fifth potential friend connection at least by determining that the first user performed an actuation of an accept button of the fifth potential friend connection on the graphical user interface, the fifth potential friend connection corresponding to a fifth user; determining that the fifth user has expressed a positive preference indication regarding the first user after determining that the first user expressed the positive preference indication regarding the fifth potential friend connection; determining that the first user expressed a positive preference indication regarding a sixth potential friend connection at least by determining that the first user performed an actuation of an accept button of the sixth potential friend connection on the graphical user interface, the sixth potential friend connection corresponding to a sixth user; and determining that the sixth user has expressed a positive preference indication, if applicable, regarding the first user after determining that the first user expressed the positive preference indication regarding the sixth potential friend connection. (See paragraphs 109-112, Rad)
Regarding claim 6,
Rad and Bourne teach the computer implemented method of claim 1, wherein the age range comprises <30 yrs, <40 yrs, <50 yrs, 50-64 yrs, 65-74 yrs, >75 yrs. (See paragraphs 66-67, Rad)
Regarding claim 7,
Rad and Bourne teach the computer implemented method of claim 1, wherein the age range comprises <50 yrs, 50-64 yrs, 65-74 yrs, >75 yrs. (See paragraphs 66-67, Rad)
Regarding claim 8,
Rad and Bourne teach the computer implemented method of claim 1, wherein the health and wellness goals are selected from one or more of spiritual, occupational, mindfulness, family, friendship, fun and recreation, health and financial. (See paragraphs 85-86, Rad)
Regarding claim 9,
Rad and Bourne teach the computer implemented method of claim 5, wherein the carpool request includes information about a time, date and location of the carpool request origin and/or destination.
Regarding claim 10,
Rad and Bourne teach the computer implemented method of claim 6, wherein the friend blast includes information about a time, date and location of an activity. (See paragraphs 54, 56, 57, Rad)
Regarding claim 11,
Rad and Bourne teach the computer implemented method of claim 10, wherein the activity involves or is related to one or more of the following: wine tasting, travel, beach, concerts, movies, book club, dining, shopping, walking, golf, travel, hobbies, music, beach, hiking, cooking, biking, theatre, gym, politics, kids/parenting, spirituality, religious, finance, real estate, and other sports or interests.(See paragraphs 38-39, Rad)
Regarding claim 12,
Rad and Bourne teach the computer implemented method of claim 10, wherein the activity involves or is related to one or more of the following: sports, hobbies, fitness, technology, arts and culture, food and cooking, travel, volunteerism, book clubs, faith-based groups, spirituality based groups, parenting, online communities, environmental activism, gaming, and history and heritage. (See paragraphs 38-39, Rad)
Regarding claim 13,
Rad and Bourne teach the computer implemented method of claim 1.
Bourne further teaches further comprising enabling a user to opt out of communication with one or more other user. . (See paragraphs 19-23, Bourne) See motivation to combine for claim 1.
Regarding claim 14,
Rad and Bourne teach the computer implemented method of claim 1.
Bourne further teaches wherein the user is enabled to opt out of communication concerning a friend blast or a carpool request. (See paragraphs 19-23, Bourne) See motivation to combine for claim 1.
Regarding claim 15,
Rad and Bourne teach the computer implemented method of claim 1, wherein the method is adapted to function on a smartphone, tablet, computer or other computing device. (See paragraphs 34, 100, Rad)
Claim 16 list all the same elements of claim 1, but in system form rather than method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 16.
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.
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