DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Claims
Due to communications filed 2/7/25, the following is a first action non-final office action. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application and are rejected as follows.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C, 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (l.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
As per independent claim 1, the claim recites a judicial exception. Claim 1 as a whole recites a method of “receiving from a user device a request...”, “process, via a machine learning component...the received request...”, “receive...a compatibility request...”, “generate...an assessment report...” and “transmit...the generated assessment report...”. Thes steps merely describe collecting user information, analyzing the information to determine compatibility, and providing a result (matching individuals based on characteristics), which falls into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of managing interactions between people. In addition, the evaluation of compatibility between users based on traits can be performed mentally or using pen and paper, which falls into “Mental Processes” grouping of concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). The mere recitation of one or more processors, one or more memories storing executable code, a matchmaking server, a machine learning component integrated with the server, and a user device and networking platform, does not take claim 1 out of the methods of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”/”Mental Processes” grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Furthermore, the claim 1 is not integrated into a practical application. As already disclosed in the preceding paragraph, the claim recites one or more processors, one or more memories storing executable code, a matchmaking server, a machine learning component integrated with the server, and a user device and networking platform. These elements receive data, process data, generate an output, and transmits the results, which is no more than implementing the abstract idea on generic computer components performing their conventional functions in order to automate the matchmaking process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
Finally, claim 1 does not recite an inventive concept. Claim 1 recites receiving and transmitting data over a network, processing information using a processor, storing instructions in a memory, and displaying results on a user device. Even though the claim recites a machine learning component, this element does not add significantly more because it is not a specific machine learning technique, and therefore not technological improvement. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is therefore ineligible.
As per dependent claim 2, the claim recites “wherein the one or more personality traits are categorized into multiple domains, and wherein each domain corresponds to a particular aspect of personality”. This limitation describes organizing and categorizing information about personality traits into domains, which constitutes a mental process that can be performed in the human mind or using pen and paper, and therefore fits into the “Mental Processes” grouping. Furthermore, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, but instead, the manner in which the personality information is organized or analyzed. When considered individually and as an ordered combination, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is therefore ineligible.
As per dependent claim 3, the claim recites “wherein the compatibility request comprises a self-assessment request”. This limitation describes requesting information from a user in order to evaluate compatibility, which constitutes a mental process including collecting and evaluating information that can be performed in the human mind or using pen and paper, and therefore fits into the “Mental Processes” grouping. Furthermore, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, but instead, the type of information requested for evaluation. When considered individually and as an ordered combination, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is therefore ineligible.
As per dependent claim 4, the claim recites “wherein the generated assessment report comprises at least one of: a first group of users that are compatible with the user; and a second group of users that are not compatible with the user”. This limitation describes evaluating information and classifying users into groups based on compatibility, which constitutes a mental process including collecting and evaluating information that can be performed in the human mind or using pen and paper, and therefore fits into the “Mental Processes” grouping. Furthermore, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, but instead, organizes and presents the results of the compatibility evaluation. When considered individually and as an ordered combination, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is therefore ineligible.
As per dependent claim 5, the claim recites “wherein the compatibility request comprises a selection of a target user”. This limitation describes selecting a user for purposes of compatibility evaluation, and merely collecting and selection information, which constitutes a mental process including collecting and evaluating information that can be performed in the human mind or using pen and paper, and therefore fits into the “Mental Processes” grouping. Furthermore, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, but instead, specifies the type of information selected for evaluation. When considered individually and as an ordered combination, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is therefore ineligible.
As per dependent claim 6, the claim recites “wherein to generate the assessment report, the one or more memories coupled with the one or more processors and storing processor-executable code that, when executed by the one or more processors, is configured to cause the matching server to
process compatibility profiles of the user and the target user using a machine learning algorithm;
determine a correlation between the user and the target user to one or more personality attributes;
process the determined correlation to a natural language processing to generate compatibility analysis; and generate the assessment report using the generated compatibility analysis.”. These limitations describe evaluating relationships between the users with respect to personality attributes, processing the correlations using natural language processing to generate a compatibility analysis, and generating the assessment report, which describes evaluating relationships between data and generating analysis, and constitute a mental process that can be performed in the human mind or using pen and paper, and therefore fits into the “Mental Processes” grouping. Furthermore, the additional elements of a matching server, processors, memories machine learning algorithm an natural language processing merely implements the abstract idea on generic computer components. When considered individually and as an ordered combination, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is therefore ineligible.
As per dependent claim 7, the claim recites “wherein the matching server is configured to process the received request along with data extracted from one or more sources to generate the compatibility profile for the user, wherein the data extracted from the one or more sources comprises social media activity, location history, personal information of the user”. This limitation describes collecting and analyzing information to evaluate user compatibility, which describes observation, evaluation and judgement, and constitutes a mental process including. Furthermore, the additional element of a matching server merely implements the abstract idea using generic computer components. When considered individually and as an ordered combination, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is therefore ineligible.
As per independent claim 8, the claim recites a judicial exception. Claim 8 as a whole recites a method of “receiving from a user device a request...”, “processing, via a machine learning component...the received request...”, “receiving...a compatibility request...”, “generating...an assessment report...” and “transmitting...the generated assessment report...”. Thes steps merely describe collecting user information, analyzing the information to determine compatibility, and providing a result (matching individuals based on characteristics), which falls into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of managing interactions between people. In addition, the evaluation of compatibility between users based on traits can be performed mentally or using pen and paper, which falls into “Mental Processes” grouping of concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). The mere recitation of a matchmaking server, a machine learning component integrated with the server, and a user device and networking platform, does not take claim out of the methods of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”/”Mental Processes” grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Furthermore, the claim 8 is not integrated into a practical application. As already disclosed in the preceding paragraph, the claim recites a matchmaking server, a machine learning component integrated with the server, and a user device and networking platform. These elements receive data, process data, generate an output, and transmits the results, which is no more than implementing the abstract idea on generic computer components performing their conventional functions in order to automate the matchmaking process. The recitation of a machine-learning component amounts to not more than a generic data analysis tool and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
Finally, claim 8 does not recite an inventive concept. Claim 8 recites receiving and transmitting data over a network, processing information using a processor, storing instructions in a memory, and displaying results on a user device. Even though the claim recites a machine learning component, this element does not add significantly more because it is not a specific machine learning technique, and therefore not technological improvement. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is therefore ineligible.
As per dependent claim 9, the claim recites “wherein the one or more personality traits are categorized into multiple domains, and wherein each domain corresponds to a particular aspect of personality”. This limitation describes organizing and categorizing information about personality traits into domains, which constitutes a mental process that can be performed in the human mind or using pen and paper, and therefore fits into the “Mental Processes” grouping. Furthermore, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, but instead, the manner in which the personality information is organized or analyzed. When considered individually and as an ordered combination, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is therefore ineligible.
As per dependent claim 10, the claim recites “wherein the compatibility request comprises a self-assessment request”. This limitation describes requesting information from a user in order to evaluate compatibility, which constitutes a mental process including collecting and evaluating information that can be performed in the human mind or using pen and paper, and therefore fits into the “Mental Processes” grouping. Furthermore, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, but instead, the type of information requested for evaluation. When considered individually and as an ordered combination, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is therefore ineligible.
As per dependent claim 11, the claim recites “wherein the generated assessment report comprises at least one of: a first group of users that are compatible with the user; and a second group of users that are not compatible with the user”. This limitation describes evaluating information and classifying users into groups based on compatibility, which constitutes a mental process including collecting and evaluating information that can be performed in the human mind or using pen and paper, and therefore fits into the “Mental Processes” grouping. Furthermore, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, but instead, organizes and presents the results of the compatibility evaluation. When considered individually and as an ordered combination, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is therefore ineligible.
As per dependent claim 12, the claim recites “wherein the compatibility request comprises a selection of a target user”. This limitation describes selecting a user for purposes of compatibility evaluation, and merely collecting and selection information, which constitutes a mental process including collecting and evaluating information that can be performed in the human mind or using pen and paper, and therefore fits into the “Mental Processes” grouping. Furthermore, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, but instead, specifies the type of information selected for evaluation. When considered individually and as an ordered combination, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is therefore ineligible.
As per dependent claim 13, the claim recites “wherein to generate the assessment report, the one or more memories coupled with the one or more processors and storing processor-executable code that, when executed by the one or more processors, is configured to cause the matching server to
process compatibility profiles of the user and the target user using a machine learning algorithm;
determine a correlation between the user and the target user to one or more personality attributes;
process the determined correlation to a natural language processing to generate compatibility analysis; and generate the assessment report using the generated compatibility analysis.”. These limitations describe evaluating relationships between the users with respect to personality attributes, processing the correlations using natural language processing to generate a compatibility analysis, and generating the assessment report, which describes evaluating relationships between data and generating analysis, and constitute a mental process that can be performed in the human mind or using pen and paper, and therefore fits into the “Mental Processes” grouping. Furthermore, the additional elements of a matching server, processors, memories machine learning algorithm an natural language processing merely implements the abstract idea on generic computer components. When considered individually and as an ordered combination, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is therefore ineligible.
As per dependent claim 14, the claim recites “wherein the matching server is configured to process the received request along with data extracted from one or more sources to generate the compatibility profile for the user, wherein the data extracted from the one or more sources comprises social media activity, location history, personal information of the user”. This limitation describes collecting and analyzing information to evaluate user compatibility, which describes observation, evaluation and judgement, and constitutes a mental process including. Furthermore, the additional element of a matching server merely implements the abstract idea using generic computer components. When considered individually and as an ordered combination, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is therefore ineligible.
Claims 15-20 are directed to "a computer readable storage medium..." The BRI of the claimed medium includes transitory media such as signals and carrier waves which are non-statutory subject matter under 35 USC 101. The specification does not disavow or disclaim such transitory media. On the contrary, the specification discloses exemplary media including non-transitory media but fails to limit the claimed media to statutory subject matter.
As per independent claim 15, the claim recites a judicial exception. Claim 15 as a whole recites “receiving from a user device a request...”, “process, via a machine learning component...the received request...”, “receive...a compatibility request...”, “generate...an assessment report...” and “transmit...the generated assessment report...”. Thes steps merely describe collecting user information, analyzing the information to determine compatibility, and providing a result (matching individuals based on characteristics), which falls into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of managing interactions between people. In addition, the evaluation of compatibility between users based on traits can be performed mentally or using pen and paper, which falls into “Mental Processes” grouping of concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). The mere recitation of a computer readable storage medium , a matching server, a networking platform, a machine learning component integrated with the server, and a user device, does not take claim 1 out of the methods of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”/”Mental Processes” grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Furthermore, the claim 15 is not integrated into a practical application. As already disclosed in the preceding paragraph, the claim recites computer readable storage medium , a matching server, a networking platform, a machine learning component integrated with the server, and a user device. These elements receive data, process data, generate an output, and transmits the results, which is no more than implementing the abstract idea on generic computer components performing their conventional functions in order to automate the matchmaking process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
Finally, claim 15 does not recite an inventive concept. Claim 1 recites receiving and transmitting data over a network, processing information using a processor, storing instructions in a memory, and displaying results on a user device. Even though the claim recites a machine learning component, this element does not add significantly more because it is not a specific machine learning technique, and therefore not technological improvement. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is therefore ineligible.
As per dependent claim 16, the claim recites “wherein the one or more personality traits are categorized into multiple domains, and wherein each domain corresponds to a particular aspect of personality”. This limitation describes organizing and categorizing information about personality traits into domains, which constitutes a mental process that can be performed in the human mind or using pen and paper, and therefore fits into the “Mental Processes” grouping. Furthermore, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, but instead, the manner in which the personality information is organized or analyzed. When considered individually and as an ordered combination, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is therefore ineligible.
As per dependent claim 17, the claim recites “wherein the compatibility request comprises a self-assessment request”. This limitation describes requesting information from a user in order to evaluate compatibility, which constitutes a mental process including collecting and evaluating information that can be performed in the human mind or using pen and paper, and therefore fits into the “Mental Processes” grouping. Furthermore, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, but instead, the type of information requested for evaluation. When considered individually and as an ordered combination, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is therefore ineligible.
As per dependent claim 18, the claim recites “wherein the generated assessment report comprises at least one of: a first group of users that are compatible with the user; and a second group of users that are not compatible with the user”. This limitation describes evaluating information and classifying users into groups based on compatibility, which constitutes a mental process including collecting and evaluating information that can be performed in the human mind or using pen and paper, and therefore fits into the “Mental Processes” grouping. Furthermore, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, but instead, organizes and presents the results of the compatibility evaluation. When considered individually and as an ordered combination, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is therefore ineligible.
As per dependent claim 19, the claim recites “wherein the compatibility request comprises a selection of a target user”. This limitation describes selecting a user for purposes of compatibility evaluation, and merely collecting and selection information, which constitutes a mental process including collecting and evaluating information that can be performed in the human mind or using pen and paper, and therefore fits into the “Mental Processes” grouping. Furthermore, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, but instead, specifies the type of information selected for evaluation. When considered individually and as an ordered combination, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is therefore ineligible.
As per dependent claim 20, the claim recites “wherein to generate the assessment report, the one or more memories coupled with the one or more processors and storing processor-executable code that, when executed by the one or more processors, is configured to cause the matching server to process compatibility profiles of the user and the target user using a machine learning algorithm;
determine a correlation between the user and the target user to one or more personality attributes;
process the determined correlation to a natural language processing to generate compatibility analysis; and generate the assessment report using the generated compatibility analysis.”. These limitations describe evaluating relationships between the users with respect to personality attributes, processing the correlations using natural language processing to generate a compatibility analysis, and generating the assessment report, which describes evaluating relationships between data and generating analysis, and constitute a mental process that can be performed in the human mind or using pen and paper, and therefore fits into the “Mental Processes” grouping. Furthermore, the additional elements of a matching server, processors, memories machine learning algorithm an natural language processing merely implements the abstract idea on generic computer components. When considered individually and as an ordered combination, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is therefore ineligible.
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, 3, 4, 8, 10, 11, 15, 17, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghaly (US 6685479 B1), and further in view of BAKER (CA 2400123 C).
As per claim 1, Ghaly discloses:
one or more processors; and one or more memories coupled with the one or more processors and storing processor-executable code that, when executed by the one or more processors, is configured to cause the matching server, (See claim 46 of Ghaly: A device for determining a degree of compatibility between a first set of data corresponding to a first person and a second set of data corresponding to a second person comprising: a. a processor to control the device, b. computer memory to store a plurality of questions, multiple-choice answers, user's personal data or information, and a plurality of desired personality attributes, c. entry control mechanisms to select answers and operate the device, d. liquid crystal display to present questions, e. means to communicate information to and from another device, f. a control program executed on processor to determine personality attributes of the user, and compare stored and calculated information with information received from another device, and determine a degree of compatibility between the two sets of data by matching desired personality attributes with calculated attributes, and g an indicator to display said degree of compatibility); to
receive from a user device a request from a user via a networking platform at the user device, wherein the request comprises a selection of one or more personality traits provided on a user interface associated with the networking platform, ((3) Many psychologists and others who have studied and researched human behavior have classified and characterized said behavior using a plurality of categories and/or profiles each of which describes and/or relates to a plurality of personality traits. A number of methods have been developed to capture and describe the personality and/or behavior of an individual. Each of these methods is usually based on a questionnaire that includes a plurality of multiple choice questions. An individual is requested to complete the questionnaire by selecting the multiple choice answers that best fit his or her preferences; (28) In the Programming mode, the player will enter his or her answers to a plurality of questions. The device will query such answers by displaying a sequence of questions including questions with multiple choice answers. The player will select and/or provide the correct answer such as gender, age category, marital status, ethnic background, educational achievements and the like. The player will also select his or her personal preferences to a plurality of questions related to hobbies, interests, skills, sports, and the like. Further the player will select answers that best fit his or her personality profile in connection with multiple choice questions dealing with personality traits and characteristics);
process, via a machine learning component integrated with the matching server, the received request to generate a compatibility profile for the user, (Abstract: One object of the device is to predict the degree of compatibility between two players using stored information related to behavioral patterns and personality profiles. The device also matches areas of common interest between players; (28) (28) In the Programming mode, the player will enter his or her answers to a plurality of questions. The device will query such answers by displaying a sequence of questions including questions with multiple choice answers. The player will select and/or provide the correct answer such as gender, age category, marital status, ethnic background, educational achievements and the like. The player will also select his or her personal preferences to a plurality of questions related to hobbies, interests, skills, sports, and the like. Further the player will select answers that best fit his or her personality profile in connection with multiple choice questions dealing with personality traits and characteristics. Upon completing the answering of questions, the player may initiate the processing of the personal data entered by depressing the Process/Match button. Said processing of personal data consists of grouping and archiving the data into a plurality of categories and identifying the personality traits and profiles of the player based on predefined classifications. Only after such processing of data can the device be switched to the operating or Match mode; (29) In the operating mode, the device is ready to match the personality profile and other personal information of the player with those of another player. The matching process occurs in two different ways: "Receive-Process-Transmit" or "Transmit-Process-Receive." The default operation of the device is to be in a receiving standby mode until it receives data from a similar device with a request to match. Upon receiving the data, the device will match the personality profile and other personal information of the "guest" player with those of the "host" player. Said matching is based on identifying areas of common interest and the degree of compatibility between the two personality profiles.);
generate, via the machine learning component integrated with the matching server, an assessment report for the user based on the received compatibility request; and transmit, to the user device, the generated assessment report, wherein the transmitted generated assessment report is displayed at the networking platform, ((30) The results of the matching process will then be transmitted back to the host device together with a synchronization signal to enable the two devices to simultaneously display the results. Upon receiving the synchronization signal, the two devices will display a sound and light show that represents the results of the match. Such a sound and light show will continue for a predetermined period of time after which the device will return to a receiving standby mode. One example to represent the result of the match is to use various colors of the rainbow spectrum. In such an example the "red" color is one extreme on the spectrum that represents the highest matching score possible. Conversely, the "blue" color is the opposite extreme on the spectrum that represents the lowest matching score possible. Other colors and shades will indicate matching scores between the two extremes. Similarly, sound effects may range from a buzzer for a negative match to a siren for a high scoring match. Alternatively, sound effects may include a plurality of melodies each of which is associated with a specific result of the match).
Ghaly discloses: “The matching process occurs in two different ways: "Receive-Process-Transmit" or "Transmit-Process-Receive." The default operation of the device is to be in a receiving standby mode until it receives data from a similar device with a request to match. Upon receiving the data, the device will match the personality profile and other personal information of the "guest" player with those of the "host" player. Said matching is based on identifying areas of common interest and the degree of compatibility between the two personality profiles”.
But does not specifically disclose:
receive, from the user device, a compatibility request from the user upon generating the compatibility profile, wherein the compatibility request is provided on the user interface associated with the networking platform.
However, BAKER (CA 2400123 C) discloses: “As a result of the compatibility comparison, the IDPP system determines that the compatibility score is favorable for interpersonal compatibility, and automatically prompts or pages the current users by placing their names in window 114. It will be further appreciated that window 114 may be updated automatically, or manually in response to a user selection, in order to display still further chatters that are determined by the IDPP system to be compatible.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the above limitations as taught by BAKER in the systems of Ghaly, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 3, Ghaly discloses:
wherein the compatibility request comprises a self-assessment request, ((14) Referring now to FIG. 13, for an example of the questions and associated multiple choice answers which are used to ascertain behavioral patterns and personality profiles. These specific examples were developed by the Carlson Learning Company and have been used for self-assessment and team building
Claim 4 (of Ghaly): 49. A device as recited in claim 46 wherein said questions, answers and user's personal information are related to...self assessment attribute...).
As per claim 4, Ghaly discloses:
wherein the generated assessment report comprises at least one of:
a first group of users that are compatible with the user; and a second group of users that are not compatible with the user, ((7) It is another object of this invention to provide a new hand held personal device that would indicate the degree to which two individuals are compatible and how well they will get along; (30) The results of the matching process will then be transmitted back to the host device together with a synchronization signal to enable the two devices to simultaneously display the results. Upon receiving the synchronization signal, the two devices will display a sound and light show that represents the results of the match. Such a sound and light show will continue for a predetermined period of time after which the device will return to a receiving standby mode. One example to represent the result of the match is to use various colors of the rainbow spectrum. In such an example the "red" color is one extreme on the spectrum that represents the highest matching score possible. Conversely, the "blue" color is the opposite extreme on the spectrum that represents the lowest matching score possible. Other colors and shades will indicate matching scores between the two extremes. Similarly, sound effects may range from a buzzer for a negative match to a siren for a high scoring match. Alternatively, sound effects may include a plurality of melodies each of which is associated with a specific result of the match).
As per claim 8, this claim recites limitations similar to those discloses in independent claim 1 and is therefore rejected for similar reasons.
As per claim 10, wherein the compatibility request comprises a self-assessment request.
Please see the rejection for claim 3.
As per claim 11, wherein the generated assessment report comprises at least one of:
a first group of users that are compatible with the user; and a second group of users that are not compatible with the user.
Please see the rejection for claim 4.
As per claim 15, this claim recites limitations similar to those disclosed in independent claim 1, and is rejected for similar reasons.
As per claim 17, wherein the compatibility request comprises a self-assessment request.
Please see the rejection of claim 3.
As per claim 18, wherein the generated assessment report comprises at least one of:
a first group of users that are compatible with the user; and
a second group of users that are not compatible with the user.
Please see the rejection for claim 4.
Claim(s) 2, 9, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghaly (US 6685479 B1), and further in view of BAKER (CA 2400123 C), and further in view of SIRIGU (WO 2011027060 A2).
As per claim 2, Ghaly does not disclose:
wherein the one or more personality traits are categorized into multiple domains, and wherein each domain corresponds to a particular aspect of personality.
However, SIRIGU (WO 2011027060 A2) discloses: “The international NEO-PI-R questionnaire is based on the idea that personality traits are organized hierarchically. It is the most influential model of the human personality, evaluating the five main dimensions of personality or domains (neuroticism, extroversion, openness, agreeableness and consciousness) and the most important traits of these dimensions also called "facets". Extraversion captures the social aspect of personality and includes six facets (warmth, gregariousness, assertiveness, activity, search for sensations, and positive emotions)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the above limitations as taught by SIRIGU in the systems of Ghaly, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 9, wherein the one or more personality traits are categorized into multiple domains, and wherein each domain corresponds to a particular aspect of personality, and wherein at least one of: the request and the compatibility request is an audio input request.
Please see the rejection of claim 2.
As per claim 16, wherein the one or more personality traits are categorized into multiple domains, and wherein each domain corresponds a particular aspect of personality.
Please see the rejection of claim 2.
Claim(s) 5, 12, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghaly (US 6685479 B1), and further in view of BAKER (CA 2400123 C), and further in view of YOSHIDA (JP 2002073787 A).
As per claim 5, Ghaly does not disclose:
wherein the compatibility request comprises a selection of a target user.
However, YOSHIDA (JP 2002073787 A) discloses: “the compatibility diagnosis server 100 sends a questionnaire to the plurality of client computers 200 and stores the questionnaire answer as user information on a fixed disk. When a compatibility diagnosis request is received from a certain client computer 200, the compatibility diagnosis is performed based on the stored user information. If the result of the compatibility diagnosis satisfies a predetermined condition, the compatibility diagnosis requester is notified of the user of the compatibility diagnosis target user”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the above limitations as taught by YOSHIDA in the systems of Ghaly, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 12, wherein the compatibility request comprises a selection of a target user.
Please see the rejection for claim 5.
As per claim 19,
wherein the compatibility request comprises a selection of a target user.
Please see the rejection of claim 5.
Claim(s) 6, 13, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghaly (US 6685479 B1), and further in view of BAKER (CA 2400123 C), and further in view of Smith et al (US 12099527 B1).
As per claim 6, Ghaly does not specifically disclose:
cause the matching server to process compatibility profiles of the user and the target user using a machine learning algorithm; determine a correlation between the user and the target user to one or more personality attributes; process the determined correlation to a natural language processing to generate compatibility analysis; and generate the assessment report using the generated compatibility analysis.
However, Smith et al (US 12099527 B1) discloses: (23)Continuing, in some cases, compatibility harmonizer 152 may contain a compatibility profile 156. Compatibility profile 156 generates a success rate for the cluster pairing of a specific entity profile 108 with a specific engagement profile 116. In a non-limiting embodiment, compatibility profile 156 initially generates a match likelihood percentage based on the assessed commonality of the two profiles and their descriptor(s) (e.g. every single descriptor matching perfectly between the two profiles would generate a 100% compatibility profile 156, and no matching descriptors would generate a 0%). Compatibility profile 156 relies on machine-learning model 144 to continually revise and improve its algorithm to effectively incorporate training data contributed by user; (29) With continued reference to FIG. 1, in some cases computing device 104 may determine compatibility profile 156 by receiving a plurality of complementary entity model 132 and engagement model 136 from data repository 128 and using the pair as training data. With machine-learning model 144 being most accurate and effective when it has an extensive historic database to learn from, user may generate hypothetical profiles that user intends to be good examples of a successful match. User may then, through a graphical user interface (GUI) 160, inject feedback promoting the match. These types of interactions, especially when aggregated in large quantities, teach machine-learning model 144 profile cluster pairs should receive high compatibility profile 156 ratings, and machine-learning model 144 adjusts accordingly; (37) Alternatively or additionally, and continuing to refer to FIG. 2, training data 204 may include one or more elements that are not categorized; that is, training data 204 may not be formatted or contain descriptors for some elements of data. Machine-learning algorithms and/or other processes may sort training data 204 according to one or more categorizations using, for instance, natural language processing algorithms; ALSO See Fig. 3; ALSO SEE (57) GUI 300 may be configured to summarize the displayed profiles using the allocated descriptors or descriptor classifiers as described above. GUI 300 may further be configured to display a match and/or gap overview, wherein a match and gap overview captures and summarizes the alignment and missing components, respectively, of the cluster pair).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the above limitations as taught by Smith et al in the systems of Ghaly, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 13,
wherein generating the assessment report comprises: processing compatibility profiles of the user and the target user using a machine learning algorithm; determining a correlation between the user and the target user to one or more personality attributes; processing the determined correlation to a natural language processing to generate compatibility analysis; and generating the assessment report using the generated compatibility analysis.
Please see the rejection for claim 6.
As per claim 20, wherein generating the assessment report comprises:
processing compatibility profiles of the user and the target user using a machine learning
algorithm; determining a correlation between the user and the target user to one or more personality
attributes; processing the determined correlation to a natural language processing to generate
compatibility analysis; and generating the assessment report using the generated compatibility analysis.
Please see the rejection of claim 6.
Claim(s) 7, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghaly (US 6685479 B1), and further in view of BAKER (CA 2400123 C), and further in view of Talavera (US 20240039905 A1).
As per claim 7, wherein the matching server is configured to process the received request along with data extracted from one or more sources to generate the compatibility profile for the user, wherein the data extracted from the one or more sources comprises social media activity, location history, personal information of the user.
Talavera (US 20240039905 A1) [1559] A computing system for facilitating the hiring of companions or friends for various social or event-related purposes, comprising: [1560] a) User registration and profile management components allowing individuals seeking companionship services (hiring parties) and individuals offering companion services (companion providers) to create and manage user profiles within the system. [1561] b) A search and matching computing operation designed to match hiring parties with companion providers based on compatibility, availability, and specific event or social requirements; ALSO SEE: Claim 57 [of Talavera] receiving at least one matching parameter from the second user, wherein the matching parameter comprises at least one of a distance or location, a minimum income or an income range, a net worth of a user, a facial or body feature of a user, a background, an education, a personal or professional status of a user... based on location history of prior closed periods associated with at least one of the first user or the second user... performing one or more AI/machine learning (ML) operations based on one or more data, wherein data collected from the computing network comprises at least one of content; a photo; a video; a selecting, clicking, searching, or computing activity on the computing network; a selecting, clicking, searching, or computing activity outside the computing network; a selecting, clicking, searching, or computing activity on a searching or social media platform or network... a user's personal information such as at least one of a name, a location, a distance, asset information, real estate information, or paycheck information.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the above limitations as taught by Smith et al in the systems of Ghaly, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 14,
wherein the received request is processed along with data extracted from one or more sources to generate the compatibility profile for the user, wherein the data extracted from the one or more sources comprises social media activity, location history, personal information of the user.
Please see the rejection for claim 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Akiba Robinson whose telephone number is 571-272-6734 and email is Akiba.Robinsonboyce@USPTO.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 6:30am-4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor, Nathan 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.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is (703) 305-3900.
March 12, 2026
/AKIBA K ROBINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628