DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after 3/16/2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to the Application and claims filed 3/6/2025.
Claims 1-12 have been examined and are pending.
(AIA ) Examiner Note
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or (for pre-AIA ) 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor, a joint inventor, or (for pre-AIA ) the applicant regards as the invention.
Dependent claim 5 recites, “the method of claim 5…” respectfully, a claim cannot depend on itself. The claim is ambiguous and lacks proper antecedent basis. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 5 to depend from claim 4. Nonetheless, correction and clarification is required.
Dependent claims 5 and 11 each recite in part the following: “…, wherein the pup-up the roommate comfort prompt comprises a pop-up message is programmed…” Respectfully, the claims lack proper antecedent basis for “pup-up”. Additionally, the claims are not clear – it is not clear what a pup-up the roommate comfort prompt comprises a pop-up message might entail. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets the feature in question as follows: “…wherein the pop-up message is programmed…”; i.e. “the pop-up” is a reference to the previous reference to “pop-up” in the respective parent claim (e.g. claim 4 or 10). Nonetheless, correction and clarification is required.
For each of the aforementioned reasons, these claims are held to be indefinite.
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 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Independent claim 7 recites: “A computer-readable medium having stored therein instructions … being executable by a processor to perform operations…: The specification portion of the original disclosure does not actually mention “computer readable medium” and does not exclude it from being any type of media capable of having stored therein instructions, such as transitory propagating signals per se. See also Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media, 1351 OG 212 (Feb. 23, 2010). As a result, claim 7 is directed to signals. However, signals are not a statutory class of invention. Accordingly, claim 7 is rejected because it is not directed to statutory subject matter.
For the purpose of compact prosecution only, the claims are interpreted for further analysis as being directed towards “A non-transitory computer-readable medium…”
Claims 8-12 fail to introduce sufficient limitations to remedy the deficiencies of claim 7 and are therefore similarly rejected as being not directed to statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (i.e. a judicial exception) without significantly more.
Per step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the claims are interpreted as being directed towards either a process (claims 1-6), machine (claims 7-12), or manufacture.
Per step 2A Prong One, the claims recite specific limitations which fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the MPEP 2106, as follows:
Per Independent claims 1 and 7:
generating a housing application module in response to the request, wherein the housing application module includes requests for application data from the applicant;…,
wherein said housing application module includes a roommate-comfort prompt to the applicant;…
prioritizing the roommate-comfort prompt response data over application data; and
generating a housing assignment that is consistent with the roommate-comfort response,…
As noted supra, these limitations fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG. Specifically, these limitations fall within the groups Mental Processes (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity (e.g. fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
That is, the steps, as drafted, may be considered nothing more than steps taken in managing personal behaviors or relationships between people such as organizing roommates according to preferences by matching preferences of potential roommates and thus falling into Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. There is no technical problem being solved here and there is no technical solution for solving a technical problem being claimed. This is nothing more than a method of requesting student preferences and matching students based on preferences where a preference may include prioritizing one set of criteria over another. Additionally, the “prioritizing” step itself may be viewed as a generic evaluation or judgment when recited at this very high level of generality and is akin to a mental process because no particular “prioritization” algorithm or scheme is recited nor contemplated in the specification – judgements and evaluations are mental processes per Cyberfource and MPEP 2106.
Furthermore, the mere nominal recitation of a generic computer components (e.g. A computer-readable medium having stored therein instructions for generating a housing application module for determining an applicant's roommate-comfort level and assigning housing accommodations being executable by a processor to perform operations) does not take the claim limitation out of the enumerated grouping. Note also, although a “module” is recited, at this high-level of generality, this is not technical in nature and an analog may be a simple questionnaire / form, generically produced by a human and then encoded by a human (e.g. university housing administrator staff), and transmitted to a student electronically. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Per step 2A Prong 2, the Examiner finds that the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Although there are additional elements, other than those noted supra, recited in the claims, none of these additional element(s) or a combination of elements as recited in the claims apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. As drafted, the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the aforementioned concepts or, link them to a field of use (e.g. organizing roommates according to preferences) or, serve as insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g. data receipt and transmittal). The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to implement the idea but are not technical in nature. Simply implementing the abstract idea on or with generic computer components is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
These additional limitations are as follows: “A computer-implemented method for generating a housing application module for determining an applicant's roommate-comfort level and assigning housing accommodations, the method comprising: receiving a request for a housing application from the applicant… ;transmitting the housing application module to the applicant… receiving completed housing application data from the applicant that includes a response to the roommate-comfort prompt; … thereby increasing accurate housing assignments and reducing the number of gender-related rehousing requests.” And “A computer-readable medium having stored therein instructions for generating a housing application module for determining an applicant's roommate-comfort level and assigning housing accommodations being executable by a processor to perform operations…”
However, these elements do not present a technical solution to a technical problem; i.e. Applicant’s invention is not a technique nor technical solution for “receiving” nor “transmitting” data nor is the description of the intended meaning of data significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements do not recite a specific manner of performing any of the steps core to the already identified abstract idea. Instead, these features merely serve to generally “apply” the aforementioned concepts or, link them to a field of use or, are insignificant extra-solution activity to the already identified abstract idea and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application thereof. Furthermore, there is not improvement to technology/computing functions and there is no particular machine required beyond a generic computer with display.
Per Step 2B, the Examiner does not find that the claims provide an inventive concept, i.e., the claims do not recite additional element(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception recited in the claim. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the independent claims were considered as merely serving to generally “apply” the aforementioned concepts via generically described computer components (e.g. computer-readable medium having stored therein instructions, etc…) and “link” them to a field of use (e.g. organizing roommates according to preferences), or as insignificant extra-solution activity (data transmittal, gathering, etc…). For the same reason these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept; i.e. the same analysis applies here in 2B. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and conventional data gathering cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. So, upon revaluating here in step 2B, these elements are determined to amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (i.e. a server) and/or gather and transmit data which is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field; i.e. note the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs Court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(ll) indicate that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, alone and in combination, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, as found supra, nor provide an inventive concept, and thus the claims are not patent eligible.
As for the dependent claims, the dependent claims do recite a combination of additional elements. However, these claims as a whole, considered either independently or in combination with the parent claims, do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application thereof nor do they provide an inventive concept.
For example, dependent claims 4 and 10 recite the following: “… wherein the roommate-comfort prompt comprises a pop-up message that overlays the housing application module in a graphical user interface.” However, pop-ups are not applicant’s invention. This feature is seen as a generic choice from already well-known modes of communication to display data, such as the prompt / request for information. Applicant’s choice to use well-known modes of communication to prompt for data is not significantly more than the already identified abstract idea. Indeed, at this level of generality, this feature may also be seen as insignificant pre-solution activity – i.e. a known mechanism to receive data must occur before the abstract idea may operate upon the data which is ultimately received.
Therefore, the Examiner does not find that these additional claim limitations integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor provide an inventive concept. Instead, these limitations, as a whole and in combination with the already recited claim elements of the parent claims, are not significantly more than the already identified abstract idea. A similar finding is found for the remaining dependent claims.
For these reasons, the claims are not found to include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and therefore the claims are not found to be patent eligible.
Please see the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019 (found at http://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidance-and-training-materials).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 (AIA )
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Beacher et al. (U.S. 2004/0117528 A1; hereinafter, "Beacher") in view of Reiley et al. (U.S. 2023/0065338 A1; hereinafter, "Reiley").
Claims 1, 7:
Pertaining to claims 1, 7 as exemplified in the limitations of method claim 1, Beacher as shown teaches the following:
A computer-implemented method for generating a housing application module for determining an applicant's roommate-comfort level and assigning housing accommodations, the method comprising:
receiving a request for a housing application from the applicant (Beacher, see at least Figs. 1, 9-10, and [0111]-[0130] in view of [0243]-[0250] regarding a student’s [applicant’s] “home page” also called “hub”, and in view of and [0326]-[0376], teaching a system and method where a student may, via their “home page/hub” request to complete an assigned task, such as request to complete "Apply for Housing"; the request is received by the system from the student via student click on assigned task; e.g.: “…[0111] Tasks [0112] Any online action that a student, parent, or staff user does is called a task. This includes any link, button, or menu item on any page that can be clicked. [0113] Some examples of tasks for students: apply for housing; complete your application form; agree to the housing rules; pay your housing fee; search for housing; order your housing; cancel housing; search for roommates; and confirm a roommate…”);
generating a housing application module in response to the request, wherein the housing application module includes requests for application data from the applicant (Beacher, see at least all citations noted supra, including: [0130]: “…For example, the manager can create a parent task called "Apply for Housing for Fall 2004" [housing application module] that calls these child tasks: read the housing application instructions; complete your Housing Preference form [a type of application data]; complete your Roommate Preference form [another type of application data, e.g. applicant’s roommate-comfort level]; agree to the housing rules and regulations; pay your $25 application…”);
transmitting the housing application module to the applicant, wherein said housing application module includes a roommate-comfort prompt to the applicant (Beacher, see citations noted supra, including Figs. 9-10 and [0326]-[0376], teaching the "Apply for Housing for Fall 2004 task” [housing application module] is displayed [transmitted] to the student [to the applicant], e.g. via the student’s “home page”, and this task as disclosed may include “…child tasks: read the housing application instructions; complete your Housing Preference form; complete your Roommate Preference form [a roommate-comfort prompt to the applicant]…”; Note per at least [0269]: “…Clicking on a parent task like ‘Fall 2004 Housing’ simply takes the user to another task status page, shown in FIG. 10, that displays whatever child tasks exist, using the same interface shown in FIG. 9…”; e.g. note the displayed Fall 2004 Housing application includes a link to the “roommate preference form” as part of Fig. 10 provided below:
PNG
media_image1.png
398
614
media_image1.png
Greyscale
);
receiving completed housing application data from the applicant that includes a response to the roommate-comfort prompt (Beacher, see citations noted supra, including again at least Fig. 10, [0187] and [0195]-[0198], teaching: the student may complete various required data related to the housing application that includes a response to [i.e. system receives] the “roommate preference form”, such as an update to the roommate preference form and when the response is complete, the status is updated to “accepted”; e.g.: “…[0195] The status of a task or User Defined Field value is displayed to users and can be one of these values: [0196] (A) "Not Done," the initial value before any action is taken. [0197] (B) "Accepted" when done and approved. [0198] (C) "Pending Staff Approval" when the action is not accepted unless staff approves…” );
[…]
and generating a housing assignment that is consistent with the roommate-comfort response, thereby increasing accurate housing assignments and reducing the number of gender-related rehousing requests (Beacher, see citations noted supra, including also at least Figs. 19-20 depicting a generated “room reservation page” including assigned roommates and their beds [a generated housing assignment], which is generated as per Beacher’s disclosure, e.g. per [0104]-[0105]: “…When several roommates indicate they wish to live with each other, the software system consults a special module of code called the "Roommate Compatibility Process". It looks at all the User Defined Fields for all the roommates to make sure there are no business rules associated with those User Defined Fields that prevent the roommate relationships from being approved. The "Roommate Confirmation Process" returns an approval or disapproval answer to the system, as well as to the roommates requesting to live together. If they are approved as roommates, then when they select a housing unit to reserve together, the software system calls upon another module of program code, the Housing Compatibility Process. This process studies if all the User Defined Fields assigned collectively to all roommates conflict or agree with the business rules for any User Defined Fields associated with the housing unit itself. It returns an answer to the system and to the roommates whether their reservation order can be approved or disapproved…”; see also at least [0376] noting the roommate matching may be automatically generated where: “…Pushing one button finds everyone whose Roommate Search Criteria values most match yours… It then lists in order the people matching your answers that you may choose from as possible roommates as show in FIG. 13…”; see also again at least [0004]-[0006] in view of [0228]-0232] and [0314]-[0338] where Beacher describes the known roommate compatibility and preference problem encountered on universities and that his invention provides Roommate Search Criteria and techniques for auto matching roommates based on matching criteria for the purpose of generating housing assignments for compatible roommates; Examiner notes this process of Beacher’s is naturally expected to reduce, with some probability, rehousing requests as compared to an arbitrary assignment type system and therefore also would be expected to result in reduction in gender-related rehousing requests especially in view of Beacher’s system/method affording students explicit options to provide roommate preference search criteria responses which are related to gender.)
Although Beacher teaches the above limitations, and his system receives data regarding both a student’s search criteria data pertaining to roommate preferences as part of his Roommate Preference form [a roommate-comfort prompt to the applicant]…” as well as other housing and room preferences [application data] and Beacher teaches he compares each student’s search criteria to all the other students’ search criteria, e.g. per at least [0376], to match student preferences when providing an ordered list of people matching a particular student’s search criteria, he may not explicitly teach his student provided criteria regarding roommate preferences as part of his “roommate preference form” [roommate comfort prompt response data] is prioritized over the other general housing and room preferences [application data], e.g. dorm floor level or other general housing characteristics. However, regarding such feature, Beacher in view of Reiley teach the following:
prioritizing the roommate-comfort prompt response data over application data (Reiley, see at least Fig. 10B in view of at least [0024], e.g.: “…Preferably, the first part is the question itself that is answered based on a numeric scale, for example, between 0 to 100. The second part is the "importance" [prioritizing] of the question to the individual that is also answered based on a numeric scale, for example, between 0 to 100…”; note the question [prompt] per at least Fig. 10B is regarding roommate preferences [comfort level] and therefore the individual’s answer to such a question [prompt] is a type of response data and this response data is prioritized according to the individual’s assigned "importance" [prioritizing] of their provided response data. Also note [0058]: “….FIG. 10B shows the Decision Profile, Decision Object, and two Decision Dimensions in FIG. 10A with the representative scores for matching in the search conducted by a system user looking for best roommate match for him/her…”
PNG
media_image2.png
780
696
media_image2.png
Greyscale
)
Therefore, the Examiner understands that the limitation in question is merely applying a known technique of Reiley (directed towards a technique by which a user is enabled to prioritize response data regarding a particular criteria, e.g. particular roommate preference criteria, over other response data) which is applicable to a known base device/method of Beacher (already directed towards receiving student response data including both “Roommate Preference form” data [a roommate-comfort prompt to the applicant]…” as well as other general house and room preference data) to yield predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique of Reiley to the device/method of Beacher in order to perform the limitation in question, i.e. to prioritize Beacher’s student’s search criteria data regarding roommate preferences [roommate-comfort prompt response data] over Beacher’s student’s general housing and room preferences [application data] per Reiley’s technique because Beacher and Reiley are analogous art in the same field of endeavor (at least G06F 18/22 – Pattern recognition analysis via “Matching criteria”) and because according to MPEP 2143(I) (C) and/or (D), the use of known technique to improve a known device, methods, or products in the same way (or which is ready for improvement) is obvious.
Claims 2-3, 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Beacher in view of Reiley, and further in view NPL (https://talk.collegeconfidential.com/t/trans-student-rooming-dilemma/3659469; Feb 2024; retrieved 1/28/2026).
Claims 2, 8
Although Beacher and Reiley teach the limitations upon which these claims depends, including providing prompts for a student to enter roommate search criteria preferences as part of a “Roommate Preference form” [a roommate-comfort prompt to the applicant]…” such as per Beacher [0328]-[0374] “Lifestyle Preferences”, etc… Beacher may not explicitly teach his prompts to receive roommate search criteria preferences, e.g. “Lifestyle preferences” etc…, includes preference [comfort] regarding rooming with a person identifying themself as transgender. However, regarding such preference, Beacher in view of NPL teaches the following:
…wherein the roommate-comfort prompt comprises a request for whether the applicant is comfortable rooming with a transgender person.
PNG
media_image3.png
837
1249
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, the Examiner understands that NPL provides motivation and teaching that the claimed student response data is important data to collect to assist in assigning student housing which is agreeable to each student’s preferences and level of comfort. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have recognized this need per the teaching, suggestion, and motivation provided by NPL and therefore to specifically include such search criteria in Beacher’s “Roommate preference form”, i.e. include a request regarding whether the student is comfortable rooming with a person identifying themself as transgender, e.g. as part of Beacher’s “Lifestyle Preferences” criteria, etc… because per MPEP 2143(I) (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is obvious. The motivation to combine may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. Id. at 1366, 80 USPQ2d at 1649.
Claims 3, 9
Although Beacher and Reiley teach the limitations upon which these claims depends, including providing prompts for a student to enter roommate search criteria preferences as part of a “Roommate Preference form” [a roommate-comfort prompt to the applicant]…” such as per Beacher [0328]-[0374] “Lifestyle Preferences”, etc… Beacher may not explicitly teach his prompts to receive roommate search criteria preferences, e.g. “Lifestyle preferences” etc…, includes preference [comfort] regarding rooming with a a person identifying themself as non-binary. However, regarding such preference, Beacher in view of NPL teaches the following:
… wherein the roommate-comfort prompt comprises a request for whether the applicant is comfortable rooming with a nonbinary person.
PNG
media_image3.png
837
1249
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, the Examiner understands that NPL provides motivation and teaching that the claimed student response data is important data to collect to assist in assigning student housing which is agreeable to each student’s preferences and level of comfort. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have recognized this need per the teaching, suggestion, and motivation provided by NPL and therefore to specifically include such search criteria in Beacher’s “Roommate preference form”, i.e. include a request regarding whether the student is comfortable rooming with a person identifying themself as non-binary, e.g. as part of Beacher’s “Lifestyle Preferences” criteria, etc… because per MPEP 2143(I) (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is obvious. The motivation to combine may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. Id. at 1366, 80 USPQ2d at 1649.
Claims 4-5, 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Beacher in view of Reiley, and further in view Yano et al. (U.S. 2002/0049699 A1; hereinafter, "Yano").
Claims 4, 10:
Although Beacher and Reiley teach the limitations upon which these claims depends, including providing prompts for a student to enter roommate search criteria preferences as part of a “Roommate Preference form” [a roommate-comfort prompt to the applicant]…”, Beacher may not explicitly teach his prompts comprise a pop-up as recited below. However, regarding such nuance, Beacher in view of Yano teaches the following:
…wherein the roommate-comfort prompt comprises a pop-up message that overlays the housing application module in a graphical user interface (Yano, see at least [0125]: “…Then, a pop-up menu for specifying search criteria as well as output criteria is overwritten and displayed adjacent to the recognized keyword (S1305). More specifically, as shown in FIG. 14, when the keyword 1401 (for example, "LINKED") is displayed, the pop-up menu for the search criteria as well as output criteria is displayed adjacent to the corresponding keyword…”).
Therefore, the Examiner understands that the limitation in question is merely applying a known technique of Yano (directed towards presenting prompts for search criteria via a pop-up menu) which is applicable to a known base device/method of Beacher (already directed towards providing a student with prompts to provide roommate search criteria) to yield predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique of Yano to the device/method of Beacher in order to perform the limitation in question because Yano is pertinent to the problem address by Beacher and because according to MPEP 2143(I) (C) and/or (D), the use of known technique to improve a known device, methods, or products in the same way (or which is ready for improvement) is obvious.
Claims 5, 11:
Beacher/Reiley/Yano teach the limitations upon which these claims depend. Furthermore, Beacher in view of Yano teaches the following:
…wherein [the] pop-up message is programed to remain onscreen until the applicant enters a response (See 112(b) rejection guiding claim interpretation. Yano, see citations noted supra, e.g. at least [0125], e.g.: “…By clicking on a desired character on this pop-up menu (not shown), the corresponding item can be selected…”; i.e. per the disclosure, the pop-up menu must remain onscreen at least long enough to enable “clicking on a desired character on this pop-up menu”; i.e. if not explicit, Examiner finds Yano’s disclosure provides motivation to enable the pop-up to be so displayed until a response of some type is entered to enable Yano’s teachings. Furthermore, Yano’s teachings are found to provide motivation to close such pop-up after selection/clicking, e.g. to not permanently overlay other important content, and would also be within the level of skill and obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art in view of Yano’s suggestions.).
Therefore, the Examiner understands that the limitation in question is merely applying a known technique of Yano (directed towards presenting prompts for search criteria via a pop-up menu which remain until a user provides some response such as clicking on a desired character on this pop-up or closing the pop-up) which is applicable to a known base device/method of Beacher (already directed towards providing a student with prompts to provide roommate search criteria) to yield predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique of Yano to the device/method of Beacher in order to perform the limitation in question because Yano is pertinent to the problem address by Beacher and because according to MPEP 2143(I) (C) and/or (D), the use of known technique to improve a known device, methods, or products in the same way (or which is ready for improvement) is obvious.
Claims 6, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Beacher in view of Reiley, and further in view Rajagopala et al. (U.S. 2024/0144117 A1; hereinafter, "Rajagopala").
Claims 6, 12:
Although Beacher / Reiley teach the limitations upon which these claims depends, including as already noted supra, providing a form for a student to enter roommate search criteria preferences [roommate comfort prompt responses] such as per Beacher [0328]-[0374] “Lifestyle Preferences”, etc… Beacher may not explicitly teach his roommate preference form may also include a request for a parent or guardian of the student applicant to provide a response. However, regarding such feature, Beacher in view of Rajagopala teaches the following:
…wherein the roommate-comfort prompt comprises a request for a parent or guardian of the applicant provide a response (Rajagopala, see at least Figs 5D and 7J1-7J7 and associated disclosure, e.g. per [0085]-[0086], teaching: “…before that friend request is sent to the other child (e.g., the requested child), the friend request must first be approved by the requesting child's parent or guardian 342. If the friend request is approved by the requesting child, then the friend request is sent to the other child (e.g., the requested child) and the other child's (e.g., the requested child) parent(s) or guardian(s) 344. In some cases, the request will be sent to the other child's (e.g., the requested child's) parent or guardian first, and then if approved, to the requested child. In any manner, if the other parent(s) (e.g., the requested child's parents) approve the request, then the requested child and the requesting child are both notified and the children are connected as friends 346. If the other parent (e.g., the requested child's parent) declines, then the children are not linked as friends 348 and one or both of the children are notified.)
In view of these teachings, the Examiner finds Rajagopala provides some teaching, suggestion, and motivation to prompt for or otherwise request a student’s parent or guardian to provide a response such as to approve a child’s [student’s] request, e.g to befriend another particular student. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Beacher’s system/method which already provides prompts for a student to provide response to a roommate request form which may include request to room with a particular student to also include a request for the student’s parent(s) to provide a response such as approval for the student’s request because per MPEP 2143(I) (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is obvious. The motivation to combine may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. Id. at 1366, 80 USPQ2d at 1649.
Conclusion
The following prior art is made of record although not relied upon as it is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
RW Irving "An Efficient Algorithm for the `Stable Roommates` Problem," Journal of Algorithms vol 6 issue 4, pages 577-595 (Dec 1985). Irving describes a class of algorithms used to solve the so-called the "stable roommates problem" which match criteria provided by roommates.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J SITTNER whose telephone number is (571)270-3984. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; ~9:30-6:30. 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, Waseem Ashraf can be reached on (571) 270-3948. 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.
/Michael J Sittner/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621