DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-18 are currently pending and have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-9 are directed to an article of manufacture. Claims 10-18 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; simultaneously displaying: at least a portion of a first shortlist comprising one or more profiles of one or more second users interested in the event; and at least a portion of a second shortlist comprising, for each of one or more second users selected from the one or more second users interested in the event, one or more second elements.”
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; simultaneously displaying: at least a portion of a first shortlist comprising one or more profiles of one or more second users interested in the event; and at least a portion of a second shortlist comprising, for each of one or more second users selected from the one or more second users interested in the event, one or more second elements), 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 2-9 and 11-18 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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Davis et al. (US-11625654).
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);
simultaneously displaying, on the display: at least a portion of a first shortlist comprising one or more profiles of one or more 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 one or more second users selected from the one or more 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)).
Claim 2 (and Similarly Claim 11)
Davis further teaches the following limitations:
wherein each profile of the one or more 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 one or more 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 one or more 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 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 6-9 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis et al. (US-11625654) in view of Roy et al. (US-20240143598).
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 does not explicitly teach the following limitations:
enabling, by the one or more computer processors, scrolling of the first …list 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 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 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 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 does not explicitly teach the following limitations:
enabling, by the one or more computer processors, scrolling of the second …list 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 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 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 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 8 (and Similarly Claim 17)
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 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 the second …list in a second 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 ([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 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 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 9 (and Similarly Claim 18)
Davis 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 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 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon, considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure or directed to the state of art, is listed on the enclosed PTO-892.
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