DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This communication is the final action on the merits in response to the amendments and arguments filed on June 25, 2026. Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-13, 15-16, and 18 were amended. Claims 8 and 17 were canceled. Claims 1-7, 9-16, and 18 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 .
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 1-7, 9-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-7 and 9 are directed to an article of manufacture. Claims 10-16 and 18 are directed to a process. As such, each claim is directed to a statutory category of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1
The examiner has identified independent Claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent Claim 10.
Independent Claim 1 recites the following abstract ideas: “displayinga first element for creating an event by a first user; and simultaneously displaying: at least a portion of a first shortlist comprising at least two profiles of at least two second users interested in the event; and at least a portion of a second shortlist comprising, for each of at least two second users selected from the at least two second users interested in the event, one or more second elements, enablingscrolling of the first shortlist in a first direction and scrolling of the second shortlist in a second direction that is different from the first direction.”
The limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, relates to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities (i.e., displaying a first element for creating an event by a first user; and simultaneously displaying: at least a portion of a first shortlist comprising at least two profiles of at least two second users interested in the event; and at least a portion of a second shortlist comprising, for each of at least two second users selected from the at least two second users interested in the event, one or more second elements, enabling scrolling of the first shortlist in a first direction and scrolling of the second shortlist in a second direction that is different from the first direction), but for the recitation of generic computer components (i.e., a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer program code, one or more computer processors, a user interface on a mobile device, a display of the mobile device, and user interface elements). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, relates to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include: (1) Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)), (2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)). In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer program code, one or more computer processors, a user interface on a mobile device, a display of the mobile device, and user interface elements. The computer hardware is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., generic computers and computer interface displaying information) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since they do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), they do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), they do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and they do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. The additional elements of using computer hardware (a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer program code, one or more computer processors, a user interface on a mobile device, a display of the mobile device, and user interface elements) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent-eligible.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9, 11-16, and 18 do not include any additional elements beyond those identified above. They further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for at least the reasons presented above. As such, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor are they sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea when considered both individually and as an ordered combination.
Thus, the aforementioned claims are not patent-eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-7, 9-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis et al. (US-11625654) in view of Cohen (US-20200167699) and Roy et al. (US-20240143598).
Claim 1 (and Similarly Claim 10)
Davis teaches the following limitations:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer program code configured, when executed by one or more computer processors, to cause the one or more computer processors to control a user interface on a mobile device, comprising: displaying, on a display of the mobile device, a first user interface element for creating an event by a first user (Col. 12 Lines 8-20 the user will be presented with a plurality of tabs (e.g., on the user device 300 associated with subscriber user 1 110-1) including a search bar. The tabs will show the user a listing of nearby venues (e.g., local bars, nightclubs, malls, etc.), a listing of nearby places of interest (e.g., a museum) and/or a listing of events (e.g., a concert). The search bar provides for the user to input a specific venue, place of interest, event and/or a specific geographic location. At step 608, a determination is made as whether the user is interested in any of the potential meetup locations presented. If so, at step 610, receiving a selection of one or more of the potential meetup locations (e.g., one or more of the venues, places of interest and events) and the user's RSVP indication therefore; Col. 13 Lines 28-30 the user, at step 636, is able to publish their own user-defined event as an option and, at step 638, receiving and publishing the user-defined event); and
simultaneously displaying, on the display: at least a portion of a first shortlist comprising at least two profiles of at least two second users interested in the event (Col. 11 Lines 52-58 at step 602, receiving a plurality of user RSVP indications wherein each RSVP indication is associated with a specific one user of a plurality of users and an associated meetup location designated by that specific one user for which the specific one user intends on being present (e.g., physically or virtually) at a future time; Col. 12 Lines 48-49 At step 616, presenting the filtered matching subset of other RSVP users to the user; Col. 17 Lines 26-42 as shown in FIG. 11, user interface 1100 is a mobile user interface, as displayed by and through the user device 300, to the user (e.g., the subscriber user 1 110-1) that is presenting the user profile 1102 and biographical information 1104 with respect to one such RSVP user as selected by the user using the touchscreen of the user device 300. For example, such selection is made from the plurality of other RSVP users 1106 that are also displayed through the user interface 1100 where a thumbnail photograph is displayed for each of the other RSVP users and for potential selection (i.e., “like”) by the user using touch screen control 1110 or rejection (i.e., “dislike”) using touchscreen control 1108. As detailed above, the user is able to select any number of the presented other RSVP users that have been matched (e.g., by the social networking meetup app 400 employing the associated user profile for filtering purposes)); and
at least a portion of a second shortlist comprising, for each of… second users selected from the at least two second users interested in the event, one or more second user interface elements (Col. 12 Lines 49-60 at step 618, receiving one or more selections from the presented filtered matching subset of other RSVP users. In this way, the user (e.g., the subscriber user 1 110-1) may review other users who have matched the RSVP indications (i.e., both the user and the other users have indicated an intention to be at the same meetup location at some time in the future). Illustratively, the user may employ their associated user device (e.g., the user device 300) to view the presented other users and swipe left for “yes” or swipe right for “no” (as will detailed further herein below) in attempting to match with another user who has “RSVP'd” the same meetup location; Col. 17 Lines 26-42 as shown in FIG. 11, user interface 1100 is a mobile user interface, as displayed by and through the user device 300, to the user (e.g., the subscriber user 1 110-1) that is presenting the user profile 1102 and biographical information 1104 with respect to one such RSVP user as selected by the user using the touchscreen of the user device 300. For example, such selection is made from the plurality of other RSVP users 1106 that are also displayed through the user interface 1100 where a thumbnail photograph is displayed for each of the other RSVP users and for potential selection (i.e., “like”) by the user using touch screen control 1110 or rejection (i.e., “dislike”) using touchscreen control 1108. As detailed above, the user is able to select any number of the presented other RSVP users that have been matched (e.g., by the social networking meetup app 400 employing the associated user profile for filtering purposes)),
wherein controlling the user interface further comprises: enabling, by the one or more computer processors, scrolling of the first shortlist… the second shortlist (Col. 17 Lines 26-42 as shown in FIG. 11, user interface 1100 is a mobile user interface, as displayed by and through the user device 300, to the user (e.g., the subscriber user 1 110-1) that is presenting the user profile 1102 and biographical information 1104 with respect to one such RSVP user as selected by the user using the touchscreen of the user device 300. For example, such selection is made from the plurality of other RSVP users 1106 that are also displayed through the user interface 1100 where a thumbnail photograph is displayed for each of the other RSVP users and for potential selection (i.e., “like”) by the user using touch screen control 1110 or rejection (i.e., “dislike”) using touchscreen control 1108. As detailed above, the user is able to select any number of the presented other RSVP users that have been matched (e.g., by the social networking meetup app 400 employing the associated user profile for filtering purposes))
However, Davis does not explicitly teach the following limitations:
second shortlist… for each of at least two second users selected from the at least two second users interested in the event,
enabling, by the one or more computer processors, scrolling of the first …list in a first direction and scrolling of the second …list in a second direction that is different from the first direction.
Cohen, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations:
second shortlist… for each of at least two second users selected from the at least two second users interested in the event ([0146] FIG. 27 illustrates one embodiment of a filter page for a list of user accounts. The filter page is, in one embodiment, accessible to a user account upon the Platform receiving an indication of attendance at an event... The Platform receives each of the filter criteria 2701 and filters the list of user accounts displayed 2705 to present only those with matching profile elements.).
This known technique is applicable to the system of Davis as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to matching users based on events. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have recognized that applying the known technique of Cohen would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Cohen to the teachings of Davis would have yielded predictable results because the level of one of ordinary skill in the art would have known to incorporate such features (i.e., providing a second list of selected users for an event from an initial list of users) into similar systems.
However, Davis, in combination with Cohen, does not explicitly teach the following limitations:
enabling, by the one or more computer processors, scrolling of the first …list in a first direction and scrolling of the second …list in a second direction that is different from the first direction.
Roy, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations:
enabling, by the one or more computer processors, scrolling of the first …list in a first direction and scrolling the second …list in a second direction that is different from the first direction ([0083] FIG. 6 shows screen image 600 generated on device 108 after the user has been authenticated and by default after the user has cleared all search filter criteria. Selected information and areas of image 600 are described below: [0085] Filter Option Display (604): This area shows a list of the current filter criteria for types (and datatypes) of records to be searched. The list is extensible and horizontally scrollable by swiping left or right on the display area to show hidden filters. Each filter criterion is represented as a button or oval “pill” with a representative label; [0086] Search Results Display Area (606): This area below the Filter option display occupies a large portion of the remaining screen area and provides the main display area for search results showing details of retrieved records matching the initiated search results. Search result items are summarized and displayed vertically in a list; [0087] Search Result Summaries (608): Individual search result items (documents, messages, or other tracked datatypes) are summarized and displayed as a list. A vertical scrollbar may be provided when the result list is too large to fit on the screen).
This known technique is applicable to the system of Davis, in combination with Cohen, as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to presenting lists on a screen interface. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have recognized that applying the known technique of Roy would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Roy to the teachings of Davis, in combination with Cohen, would have yielded predictable results because the level of one of ordinary skill in the art would have known to incorporate such features (i.e., the ability to scroll two displayed lists in two different directions) into similar systems.
Claim 2 (and Similarly Claim 11)
Davis further teaches the following limitations:
wherein each profile of the at least two profiles comprises an image of the second user associated with the profile (Col. 17 Lines 32-36 such selection is made from the plurality of other RSVP users 1106 that are also displayed through the user interface 1100 where a thumbnail photograph is displayed for each of the other RSVP users).
Claim 3 (and Similarly Claim 12)
Davis further teaches the following limitations:
wherein each profile of the at least two profiles comprises a user interface element for removing, from the first shortlist, the second user associated with the profile (Col. 17 Lines 32-38 such selection is made from the plurality of other RSVP users 1106 that are also displayed through the user interface 1100 where a thumbnail photograph is displayed for each of the other RSVP users and for potential selection (i.e., “like”) by the user using touch screen control 1110 or rejection (i.e., “dislike”) using touchscreen control 1108).
Claim 4 (and Similarly Claim 13)
Davis further teaches the following limitations:
wherein each profile of the at least two profiles comprises a user interface element for allowing the first user to initiate communication, using the one or more computer processors, with the second user associated with the profile (Col. 12 Lines 56-64 the user may employ their associated user device (e.g., the user device 300) to view the presented other users and swipe left for “yes” or swipe right for “no” (as will detailed further herein below) in attempting to match with another user who has “RSVP'd” the same meetup location. If there is an indication of mutual interest, at step 622, then establishing a communications link, at step 624, between the user and each of the other RSVP users for which a “yes” has been indicated in the matching operation).
Claim 5 (and Similarly Claim 14)
Davis further teaches the following limitations:
wherein, for each second user in the second shortlist, the one or more second user interface elements comprise one or both of: a user interface element for allowing the first user to initiate communication, using the one or more computer processors, with the second user; and a user interface element for sending, using the one or more computer processors, a preset message to the second user confirming that the second user has been selected to attend the event with the first user (Col. 12 Lines 56-64 the user may employ their associated user device (e.g., the user device 300) to view the presented other users and swipe left for “yes” or swipe right for “no” (as will detailed further herein below) in attempting to match with another user who has “RSVP'd” the same meetup location. If there is an indication of mutual interest, at step 622, then establishing a communications link, at step 624, between the user and each of the other RSVP users for which a “yes” has been indicated in the matching operation).
Claim 6 (and Similarly Claim 15)
Davis further teaches the following limitations:
wherein controlling the user interface further comprises: enabling, by the one or more computer processors, scrolling of the first shortlist… the second shortlist (Col. 17 Lines 26-42 as shown in FIG. 11, user interface 1100 is a mobile user interface, as displayed by and through the user device 300, to the user (e.g., the subscriber user 1 110-1) that is presenting the user profile 1102 and biographical information 1104 with respect to one such RSVP user as selected by the user using the touchscreen of the user device 300. For example, such selection is made from the plurality of other RSVP users 1106 that are also displayed through the user interface 1100 where a thumbnail photograph is displayed for each of the other RSVP users and for potential selection (i.e., “like”) by the user using touch screen control 1110 or rejection (i.e., “dislike”) using touchscreen control 1108. As detailed above, the user is able to select any number of the presented other RSVP users that have been matched (e.g., by the social networking meetup app 400 employing the associated user profile for filtering purposes))
However, Davis, in combination with Cohen, does not explicitly teach the following limitations:
enabling, by the one or more computer processors, scrolling of the first …list in the first direction without causing the at least a portion of the second …list to no longer be displayed on the display.
Roy, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations:
enabling, by the one or more computer processors, scrolling of the first …list in the first direction without causing the at least a portion of the second …list to no longer be displayed on the display ([0083] FIG. 6 shows screen image 600 generated on device 108 after the user has been authenticated and by default after the user has cleared all search filter criteria. Selected information and areas of image 600 are described below: [0085] Filter Option Display (604): This area shows a list of the current filter criteria for types (and datatypes) of records to be searched. The list is extensible and horizontally scrollable by swiping left or right on the display area to show hidden filters. Each filter criterion is represented as a button or oval “pill” with a representative label; [0086] Search Results Display Area (606): This area below the Filter option display occupies a large portion of the remaining screen area and provides the main display area for search results showing details of retrieved records matching the initiated search results. Search result items are summarized and displayed vertically in a list; [0087] Search Result Summaries (608): Individual search result items (documents, messages, or other tracked datatypes) are summarized and displayed as a list. A vertical scrollbar may be provided when the result list is too large to fit on the screen).
This known technique is applicable to the system of Davis, in combination with Cohen, as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to presenting lists on a screen interface. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have recognized that applying the known technique of Roy would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Roy to the teachings of Davis, in combination with Cohen, would have yielded predictable results because the level of one of ordinary skill in the art would have known to incorporate such features (i.e., the ability to scroll one of two displayed lists without the other list disappearing) into similar systems.
Claim 7 (and Similarly Claim 16)
Davis further teaches the following limitations:
wherein controlling the user interface further comprises: enabling, by the one or more computer processors, scrolling of the second shortlist… the first shortlist (Col. 17 Lines 26-42 as shown in FIG. 11, user interface 1100 is a mobile user interface, as displayed by and through the user device 300, to the user (e.g., the subscriber user 1 110-1) that is presenting the user profile 1102 and biographical information 1104 with respect to one such RSVP user as selected by the user using the touchscreen of the user device 300. For example, such selection is made from the plurality of other RSVP users 1106 that are also displayed through the user interface 1100 where a thumbnail photograph is displayed for each of the other RSVP users and for potential selection (i.e., “like”) by the user using touch screen control 1110 or rejection (i.e., “dislike”) using touchscreen control 1108. As detailed above, the user is able to select any number of the presented other RSVP users that have been matched (e.g., by the social networking meetup app 400 employing the associated user profile for filtering purposes))
However, Davis, in combination with Cohen, does not explicitly teach the following limitations:
enabling, by the one or more computer processors, scrolling of the second …list in the second direction without causing the at least a portion of the first …list to no longer be displayed on the display.
Roy, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations:
enabling, by the one or more computer processors, scrolling of the second …list in the second direction without causing the at least a portion of the first …list to no longer be displayed on the display ([0083] FIG. 6 shows screen image 600 generated on device 108 after the user has been authenticated and by default after the user has cleared all search filter criteria. Selected information and areas of image 600 are described below: [0085] Filter Option Display (604): This area shows a list of the current filter criteria for types (and datatypes) of records to be searched. The list is extensible and horizontally scrollable by swiping left or right on the display area to show hidden filters. Each filter criterion is represented as a button or oval “pill” with a representative label; [0086] Search Results Display Area (606): This area below the Filter option display occupies a large portion of the remaining screen area and provides the main display area for search results showing details of retrieved records matching the initiated search results. Search result items are summarized and displayed vertically in a list; [0087] Search Result Summaries (608): Individual search result items (documents, messages, or other tracked datatypes) are summarized and displayed as a list. A vertical scrollbar may be provided when the result list is too large to fit on the screen).
This known technique is applicable to the system of Davis, in combination with Cohen, as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to presenting lists on a screen interface. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have recognized that applying the known technique of Roy would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Roy to the teachings of Davis, in combination with Cohen, would have yielded predictable results because the level of one of ordinary skill in the art would have known to incorporate such features (i.e., the ability to scroll one of two displayed lists without the other list disappearing) into similar systems.
Claim 9 (and Similarly Claim 18)
Davis, in combination with Cohen, does not explicitly teach the following limitations:
wherein: the first direction is one of a horizontal direction extending across a width of the mobile device and a vertical direction extending across a height of the mobile device; and the second direction is the other of the horizontal direction extending across the width of the mobile device and the vertical direction extending across the height of the mobile device.
Roy, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations:
wherein: the first direction is one of a horizontal direction extending across a width of the mobile device and a vertical direction extending across a height of the mobile device; and the second direction is the other of the horizontal direction extending across the width of the mobile device and the vertical direction extending across the height of the mobile device ([0083] FIG. 6 shows screen image 600 generated on device 108 after the user has been authenticated and by default after the user has cleared all search filter criteria. Selected information and areas of image 600 are described below: [0085] Filter Option Display (604): This area shows a list of the current filter criteria for types (and datatypes) of records to be searched. The list is extensible and horizontally scrollable by swiping left or right on the display area to show hidden filters. Each filter criterion is represented as a button or oval “pill” with a representative label; [0086] Search Results Display Area (606): This area below the Filter option display occupies a large portion of the remaining screen area and provides the main display area for search results showing details of retrieved records matching the initiated search results. Search result items are summarized and displayed vertically in a list; [0087] Search Result Summaries (608): Individual search result items (documents, messages, or other tracked datatypes) are summarized and displayed as a list. A vertical scrollbar may be provided when the result list is too large to fit on the screen).
This known technique is applicable to the system of Davis, in combination with Cohen, as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to presenting lists on a screen interface. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have recognized that applying the known technique of Roy would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Roy to the teachings of Davis, in combination with Cohen, would have yielded predictable results because the level of one of ordinary skill in the art would have known to incorporate such features (i.e., the ability to scroll two displayed lists in two different directions, such as a vertical direction and a horizontal direction) into similar systems.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Argument Regarding 35 USC 101 Rejection of Claims 1-18:
Step 2A Prong One:
Independent claims 1 and 10 are directed to controlling a user interface on a mobile device. In particular, the claims require displaying, on a display of a mobile device, a first user interface element for creating an event, and simultaneously displaying at least a portion of a first shortlist of profiles of users interested in the event and at least a portion of a second shortlist comprising user interface elements for users selected from those interested users. Furthermore, the first shortlist may be scrolled in a first direction, while the second shortlist may be scrolled in a second direction that is different from the first direction. As such, the claims are directed to a specific technical configuration of a graphical user interface of a mobile device that improves efficiency of interacting with the device and not to the abstract idea of organizing human activity itself.
MPEP § 2106.04(a)(1) provides non-limiting hypothetical examples of claims that do not recite an abstract idea, including a method of rearranging icons on a graphical user interface (GUI). Similarly, the Federal Circuit has held in Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L., v. LG Electronics, Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018) that claims to computing devices may be found patent eligible when directed to an improved user interface for electronic devices, particularly where they define both the information presented and the manner in which it is displayed, resulting in improved efficiency with which users access and use the device.
Consistent with this guidance, the claims do not merely recite the idea of organizing social interactions and instead define a specific manner of displaying and interacting with multiple user interface elements on a mobile device, including the simultaneous display of multiple shortlists and enabling user interaction with shortlists and profiles of second users using processor-controlled scrolling. In particular, the recited scrolling requires physical interaction with the mobile device (e.g., via touch input) that directly manipulates distinct interface regions, which is not directed to social interaction between users, but instead defines a specific manner in which a user operates and controls the mobile device itself, namely through processor-controlled scrolling of two simultaneously displayed shortlists in different directions in response to user input on the mobile device display. As per MPEP § 2106.04(a)(1), even if the claims on some level may involve the abstract concept of organizing social activity, they are patent eligible on the grounds they do not recite this abstract idea. Instead, the claims are directed to a specific technical configuration of a mobile device user interface that defines how multiple related sets of information are simultaneously organized on the display and independently navigated through directional scrolling in response to touch input.
Step 2A Prong Two:
Even assuming, arguendo, that the claims recite an abstract idea, Applicant submits that the claims integrate any such idea into a practical application.
Contrary to the Examiner's assertion, the claims do not involve merely using generic computer components to implement organization of social activity. Instead, the claims define specific computer program code for controlling a user interface of a mobile device that enables a user to simultaneously view and independently navigate two related but distinct sets of user information within a constrained mobile display. Specifically, the claims require display, on a mobile device display, of a first user interface element for creating an event by a first user and simultaneous display of at least a portion of two different shortlists, one comprising at least two profiles of at least two second users interested in the event and the other comprising one or more user interface elements for each of at least two second users selected from the at least two second users interested in the event. Furthermore, the claims require enabling, by the one or more computer processors, independent scrolling of the first shortlist and the second shortlist in different directions in response to user input on the mobile device display.
Accordingly, the claims do not merely display social information using generic computing components and instead define a specific configuration of a mobile device user interface comprising the simultaneous display of two independently scrollable shortlists, each navigable in a different direction, that together enable a user to efficiently review and interact with information about second users interested in an event on the relatively small display of a mobile device. Thus, the claims integrate any alleged judicial exception into the practical application of improving usability of a mobile device, which here occurs in the context of event-based social matching.
Step 2B:
The claims recite elements including (1) simultaneous display of at least a portion of each of two shortlists – a first shortlist comprising at least two profiles of second users interested in an event created by a first user and a second shortlist comprising one or more user interface elements for each of at least two second users selected from those interested second users; and (2) enabling, by one or more computer processors, independent scrolling of the first and second shortlists in different directions in response to user input on the mobile device display, which together amount to more than well-understood, routine, and conventional activity.
The Examiner analysis appears to take the claimed display, shortlists and user interface elements as isolated generic components. As set out in MPEP § 2106.05, referring to BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1242 (Fed. Cir. 2016), an inventive concept may be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of components that are individually well-known and conventional.
Here, the claimed ordered combination of elements represents a non-conventional arrangement of user interface features that enables users to efficiently navigate and interact with multiple related sets of information about second users within a constrained screen space. The scrolling limitations further contribute to this ordered combination because they require processor-controlled response to physical user input on the mobile device display in a particular manner, namely scrolling of two shortlists in different directions, rather than merely reciting display of social information. As argued in further detail below, the claimed combination is also inventive over the cited prior art. Thus, the Examiner has not identified any evidence that the claimed ordered combination of elements was well-understood, routine, or conventional at the time of filing.
Examiner’s Response: Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Step 2A Prong One:
The steps of displaying an element for creating an event, and simultaneously displaying at least a portion of a first shortlist of profiles of users interested in the event and at least a portion of a second shortlist for users selected from those interested users, as well as scrolling the lists in different directions, are all part of the abstract idea. The user interface and mobile device are a generic interface and a generic computer, used as tools to implement the abstract idea. Regarding Applicant’s argument of improving efficiency of interacting with the device, the specification does not provide any details of how the claimed invention provides any improvement to the functioning of a computer or an interface.
The present claims are not analogous to the examples from MPEP § 2106.04(a)(1), as they are not directed to a technical improvement to user interfaces for electronic devices. The user interface of the present claims is a generic interface for displaying scrollable information, and specifically information related to other users who are interested in an event of the user, and selecting users from the other users, and displaying the two lists of interested users; this is directed to the abstract ideas grouping of Organizing Human Activity.
Step 2A Prong Two:
A user simultaneously viewing and independently navigating two related but distinct sets of user information is part of the abstract idea. The displaying of an element for creating an event and simultaneous displaying of at least a portion of two different shortlists, one comprising at least two profiles of at least two second users interested in the event and the other comprising one or more elements for each of at least two second users selected from the at least two second users interested in the event, as well as the independent scrolling of the first shortlist and the second shortlist in different directions, are all part of the abstract idea, and the mobile device and user interface are a generic computer and generic interface used to implement the abstract idea. Regarding Applicant’s argument of improving usability of a mobile device, the specification does not provide any details of how the claimed invention provides any improvement to the functioning of a mobile device, or any other technology.
Step 2B:
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the Examiner has not identified any evidence that the claimed ordered combination of elements was well-understood, routine, or conventional at the time of filing, the Examiner did not rely on the well-understood, routine, or conventional activity analysis under 2106.05(g), and thus, is not required to identify evidence that the claimed ordered combination of elements was well-understood, routine, or conventional at the time of filing. The elements were rather considered generic technology based on 2106.05(f), since the recited additional elements are generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea.
For at least all the reasons above, the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Applicant’s Argument Regarding 35 USC 102 and 103 Rejections of Claims 1-18: Independent claims 1 and 10 have been amended, and neither Davis nor Roy discloses or suggests the subject matter of the claims.
Examiner’s Response: Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in light of the new ground of rejection above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARMA EL-CHANTI whose telephone number is (571)272-3404. The examiner can normally be reached T-Sa 10am-6pm ET.
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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at (571)270-1833. 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.
/KARMA A EL-CHANTI/Examiner, Art Unit 3629 /SARAH M MONFELDT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights