DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending in the present application. Claims 1-2, 4, 7-15, 17, and 19-20 were amended in the response filed 26 May 2026.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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).
Claim 1-3, and 20 are is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Reichling et al. Matching Human Actors based on their Texts: Design and Evaluation of an Instance of the ExpertFinding Framework in view of Basu et al. US Patent 8,484,083 B2. .
Regarding claim 1, Reichling et al. teaches the following:
A method comprising [note: Abstract, “integrating standard methods of text analysis, we extract and match user profiles based on a large collection of documents”, the ExpertFinder Framework measures the similarity of profiles]::
by a computing device, accessing one or more user profile reflecting one or more attribute of a plurality of users [note: page 61, “create and store user profile by interpreting structured data, such as histories of interaction, Java source code, standard comments … classification schemes within repositories, etc.”; ; page 62, section 2.1, user preferences and attributes are taken into account, generating user profiles (history data, documents, social network), analyzes user emails and common attributes; page 63 section 2.2 Methods for Automated text analysis, generates the profile ];
the one or more attributes one or more attributes from a common index [note: page 63 common reference, figure 2];
by a computing device, accessing a second user profile from the one or more user profile wherein the second user profile is specific to a second user [note: pages 64-65; figure 2 ];
by a computing device, accessing a first user profile from the one or more user profile wherein the first user profile is specific to a first user [note: pages 61-64 ];
the one or more attributes comprising a physical location information of the first user and a physical location information of the second user; and
by a computing device, identifying a degree of attribute similarity between the first user and the second user based at least one of the one or more attribute of the first user and at least one of the one or more attribute of the second user [note: page 64, “measure similarity”, page 65 creating profiles and comparing profiles; figure 3 matching of different user profiles ].
Although Reichling et al. teach the invention as cited above, they do not teach “the one or more attributes comprising a physical location information of the first user and a physical location information of the second user”. However, Basu et al. teach this feature as follows [note: column 2 lines 46-48, “profile information includes both free-form text and categorized or typed information( e.g., demographic information such as age, location, gender)”; column 3 lines 13-16, rules may be implemented through global soft constraints to determine similar or same locality]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of the effective filing date to have combined the cited references because an attribute indicating location would enhance the profiling parameters in determining relationships between entities and give needed recommendations based on closest location.
Claim 2: The method of claim 1 wherein ---“the physical location information of the first user comprises a physical location of a first receiver/transmitter; and the physical location information of a second user comprises a physical location of a second receiver/transmitter”:[see: page 62, section 2.1 analyzes emails; and note Basu et al. column 3 lines 5-16, global soft constraints include means for implementing rules to determine location].
Claim 3: The method of claim 1 further comprising automatically determining the one or more attribute from an electronic file stored on a memory of a computer of at least one of the first user or the second user [note: page 63 means for profile matching ].
The limitations of claim 20 parallel claim 1; therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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 –
(e) the invention was described in a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent, or on an international application by another who has fulfilled the requirements of paragraphs (1), (2), and (4) of section 371(c) of this title before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent.
The changes made to 35 U.S.C. 102(e) by the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 (AIPA) and the Intellectual Property and High Technology Technical Amendments Act of 2002 do not apply when the reference is a U.S. patent resulting directly or indirectly from an international application filed before November 29, 2000. Therefore, the prior art date of the reference is determined under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) prior to the amendment by the AIPA (pre-AIPA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)).
Claim(s) 17-19 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by US Patent 8,484,083 B2.
Regarding claim 17, Basu et al. teaches the following:
A processor-based method of creating a user profile of a user, the method comprising [note: Figure 1, paragraph 0019, “profile information collected in step 110 (i.e. creating a profile)” ]:
receiving an information specific to a first user [note: figure 1, (110) collect user interactions and profile information ];
determining a first attribute from the information [note: column 3 line 5 through column 4 line 27, determine a relative strength of relationship among the users in the network ; column 4 lines 28-51 additional constraints may be added ];
the first attribute corresponding to a topic for a global topic model [note: figure 1, (130) determine global topic model ];
determining a second attribute from the information [note column 3 line 5 through column 4 line 27 ];
the second attribute corresponding to an interaction for a global interaction model [note: column 3 line 5 through column 4 line 27 ];
the interaction represents a physical location of the first user [note: column 2 lines 46-48, “profile information includes both free-form text and categorized or typed information( e.g., demographic information such as age, location, gender)”.; column 3 lines 13-16, rules may be implemented through global soft constraints to determine similar or same locality ];and
determining a first user profile for the first user including the topic and the interaction [note: column 3 lines 5-18, “method 100 generates a set of global soft constraints” , developed by predefined rules that dictate users who share similar tastes form a group; column 8 lines 14-36 ].
Claim 18: The method of claim 17 wherein the topic represents a domain knowledge of the first user [note: column 4 lines 6-27 global topic model].
Claim 19: The method of claim 17 wherein the physical location information represents a proximity information of the first user to a second user of the first user.[note: Basu et al., column 3 lines 5-18, means for determining same locality (i.e. proximity) ]..
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 26 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
ARGUMENT: Claims 1-20 were rejected under 35 USC 112 first and second for the limitation “common index”. The specification gives clear support for the feature.
RESPONSE: Applicant’s remarks are found persuasive; the rejection has been withdrawn.
ARGUMENT: The independent claims have been amended to include the feature of one or more attributes comprising a physical location information of the first user and a physical location information of the second user”..
RESPONSE: Regarding claims 1-3, and 20, the examiner has added prior art reference Basu et al.., Basu et al. describes attributes include location information. See Office Action above. Also see, citations above for claims 17-19.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Note attached form PTO-892.
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 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 GRETA ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)272-4118. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 9:30AM-6:00PM.
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, Hassan Mahmoudi can be reached at 571-272-4078. 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.
/GRETA L ROBINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163
Prosecution Insights