DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claims Status
Claim 5 has been cancelled.
Claims 1-4 and 6-12 remain pending and stand rejected.
Priority
This application is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 17/208,785, filed March 22, 2021, which is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 16/876,848, filed May 18, 2020, which is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 15/658,268, filed July 24, 2017, now issued Patent No. 10,657,576, which is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 13/913,095, filed June 7, 2013, now issued Patent No. 9,740,772, which is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 13/101,058, filed May 4, 2011, now issued Patent No. 8,484,098, which claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/448,817, filed March 3, 2011.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 9/8/2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US Patent No. 9,740,772, No. 10,657,576, and No. 8,484,098 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Arguments
I. Applicant’s arguments made with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Initially, the Examiner reminds Applicant that the Office has set forth an approach to identifying abstract ideas that distills the relevant case law into enumerated groupings of abstract ideas, the groupings firmly rooted in precedent set by the courts. Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, in which examiners determine in Prong One whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then determine in Prong Two if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception. Together, these prongs represent the first part of the Alice/Mayo test, which determines whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception. In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e. whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim.
Under Prong One, the Examiner maintains that the claims clearly set forth or describe an abstract idea because the claims sets forth or describe maintaining a user’s life state so that it can be used to provide filtered information from partners to the user. This falls under the group ‘certain methods of organizing human activity’ because it performs commercial interactions such as marketing or sales activities or behaviors. The presence of other ‘additional elements’ does not negate the recitation of the abstract idea. The majority of the claim recites the specific abstract procedure for performing the commercial interaction using the life state information.
Applicant also alleges that the claimed invention provides a technical improvement, making comparison to Bascom Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Although the specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology (see MPEP 2106.05(a); MPEP 2106.04(d)(1)).
Applicant’s specification does not provide the requisite detail necessary such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement.
The alleged improvement is at best a bare assertion of the improvement and insufficient to demonstrate that Applicant has provided the technical improvement. Any improvement manifested by the invention is to the abstract idea of maintaining life state information and using that life state information to provide filtered information from partners.
Furthermore, the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it” (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The manner in which the currently pending claims are written is much more akin to the claims in Affinity Labs of Texas v. DirecTV, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2016) (the court relied on the specification’s failure to provide details regarding the manner in which the invention accomplished the alleged improvement when holding the claimed methods of delivering broadcast content to cellphones ineligible), or, Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (claims contained no restriction on the manner in which the additional elements perform these claimed functions).
As another example, Applicant’s attention is also drawn to Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 121 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Here, the courts found the claims to be directed to the abstract idea of “collecting, displaying, and manipulating data.” 850 F.3d at 1340; 121 USPQ2d at 1946. In addition to the abstract idea, the claims also recited the additional element of modifying the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document. 850 F.3d at 1342; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48. Although the claims purported to modify the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document, nothing in the claims indicated what specific steps were undertaken other than merely using the abstract idea in the context of XML documents. The court thus held the claims ineligible, because the additional limitations provided only a result-oriented solution and lacked details as to how the computer performed the modifications, which was equivalent to the words “apply it”. 850 F.3d at 1341-42; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48 (citing Electric Power Group., 830 F.3d at 1356, 1356, USPQ2d at 1743-44 (cautioning against claims “so result focused, so functional, as to effectively cover any solution to an identified problem”)).
Turning specifically to Bascom, the focus of the court was the installation of the filtering tool at a specific location, which represented a "non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known conventional pieces" resulting in a technical improvement. Neither the claims at issue, nor Applicant’s specification, purport to offer a “non-conventional” arrangement of components tantamount to that of Bascom. This is because the non-conventional arrangement in Bascom resulted in particular technical improvements (e.g. providing Internet-content filtering in a manner that can be customized for the person attempting to access such content while avoiding the need for (potentially millions of) local servers or computers to perform such filtering and while being less susceptible to circumvention by the user). Neither Applicant’s claims nor Applicant’s specification offer or otherwise discuss improvements similar to those in Bascom.
Bascom further emphasized that the claims – in light of their unconventional arrangement and technical improvement – represented a technology-based solution, not an abstract-idea-based solution implemented with generic technical components in a conventional way. Notably, the claims in Bascom were found to be directed to abstract concepts but found eligible under step 2B of the Mayo framework. The Examiner holds that a comparison to Bascom is therefore inapposite.
Ultimately, a review of the claims and specification reveals a similar lack of restriction as discussed in Affinity Labs, Internet Patents, and Intellectual Ventures. Although the Examiner appreciates the arguments set forth by Applicant, the Examiner maintains that the evidence at hand demonstrates that the invention fails to provide the requisite detail and technical explanation with respect to the alleged improvements in order to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the claimed invention achieves an improvement in the functioning of the computer itself or another technology or technical field. Similar analysis is applicable with respect to Applicant’s arguments under Step 2B.
Accordingly, the rejection under 35 USC 101 has been maintained below.
II. Applicant’s arguments made with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection. Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new grounds.
Claim Interpretation – Claim Terms
Claims 7-12 use the term “mechanism” – e.g., “a filtered information pushing mechanism”. As understood in the art, a mechanism is considered:
“a mechanical part or group of parts having a particular function”; “a process or system that is used to produce a particular result” [https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/mechanism]
The term mechanism is hereby understood as synonymous with a “system” and falling into the statutory category of “a machine” (“concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices”).
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 1-4 and 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1-4 and 7-12, under Step 2A claims 1-4 and 7-12 recite a judicial exception (abstract idea) that is not integrated into a practical application and does not provide significantly more.
Under Step 2A (prong 1), and taking claim 1 as representative, claim 1 recites (emphasis added in bold):
1. A method for maintaining a user's life state information so that it may be used as a basis for filtering information, the method comprising:
receiving user life state information about and relevant to a user's life from a user who is a registered member of the information delivery system, the user life state information including:
(a) demographic information,
(b) social information, and
(c) psychological information,
wherein the user life state information for each user is associated with a user id associated with the user;
receiving, permissions granted to one or more partners, to access the life state information associated with the user id,
maintaining, control over access to the user life state information according to the permissions gatekeeping and security features set by the user;
registering a partner associated with a partner server;
controlling in accordance with the permissions, access of the registered partner associated with the partner server to the user's life state information;
receiving filtered information from the partner wherein the filtered information is generated by the partner based on applying any of the life state information associated with the user id of the user made accessible to the partner by the permissions; and
controlling frequency, type and volume of filtered information that is pushed by the partner to the user in accordance with the gatekeeping features set by the user as identified by the user id.
These limitations recite organizing human activity, such as by performing commercial interactions and/or fundamental economic principals or practices (see: MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). This is because claims 1 sets forth or describes maintaining a user’s life state, the life state information used to provide filtered information from partners to the user. This represents the performance of a marketing and/or sales activity, which is a commercial interaction and falls under organizing human activity. This also describes concepts relating to the economy and commerce that represent fundamental economic practices, which also fall under organizing human activity.
Accordingly, under step 2A (prong 1) claim 1 recites an abstract idea because claim 1 recites limitations that fall within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Under Step 2A (prong 2), the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The Examiner acknowledges that representative claim 1 does recite additional elements, including:
a computer-implemented method,
a user computing system,
a server of an information delivery system connected to a network,
a firewall configured between a client computing system and the server,
wherein the user life state information is stored in a database accessible over the network; and,
partner servers.
Although reciting these additional elements, taken alone or in combination these elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This is because the additional elements of claim 1 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Secondly, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claim 1 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Returning to representative claim 1, taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of claim 1 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Furthermore, the additional elements fail to provide significantly more also because the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. For example, the additional elements of claim 1 utilize operations the courts have held to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see: MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)), including at least:
receiving or transmitting data over a network,
storing or retrieving information from memory,
presenting offers
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of claim 1 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, representative claim 1 does not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Regarding dependent claims 2-6, dependent claims 2-6 recite more complexities descriptive of the abstract idea itself, and at least inherit the abstract idea of claim 1. As such, claims 2-4 and 6 are understood to recite an abstract idea under step 2A (prong 1) for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Under prong 2 of step 2A, the additional elements of dependent claims 2-4 and 6 also do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, considered both individually or as a whole. More specifically, claims 2-4 and 6 rely upon the recited additional elements of claim 1, which are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further additional elements such as a data structure including attribute fields in dependent claims 2-4 and 6 are also recited only at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Lastly, under step 2B, claims 2-4 and 6 also fail to result in “significantly more” than the abstract idea under step 2B. This is again because the claims merely apply the exception on generic computing hardware, generally link the exception to a technological environment, and append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. With specific reference to automatically populating the fields in claim 3, the Examiner asserts that as written this represents little more than automated electronic recordkeeping because the claims do not specify any particular manner in which the computer operates to perform these functions.
Even when viewed as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the dependent claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, claims 2-4 and 6 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and are therefore ineligible for patenting.
Regarding claims 7-12, claims 7-12 recite at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claims 1-4 and 6 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Additionally, while claims 7-12 set forth a system, the system is comprised of corresponding additional elements as recited in claims 1-4 and 6, and is used as a tool to facilitate performance of the same abstract idea of claims 1-4 and 6. As such, claims 7-12 are rejected under at least similar rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 6, 7-8, and 12 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jones (US 2011/0145057) in view of Benson (US 10,096,054) and Garg (US 2011/0208589).
Regarding claim 1, Jones discloses a computer-implemented method for maintaining a user's life state information so that it may be used as a basis for filtering information, and the method comprising:
receiving, by a server of an information delivery system connected to a network, user life state information about and relevant to a user's life from a user who is a registered member of the information delivery system, the user life state information including: (a) demographic information, (b) social information, and (c) psychological information (see: 0008 (user registers to receive offers), 00448, 0066, 0070);
Note: 0070 describes where the profile includes age, gender, income (demographic information), race, family size, political affiliation, clubs, activities, societal memberships (social information), and personality information (psychological information);
wherein the user life state information is stored in a database accessible over the network (see: Fig. 1 #120 & 130, 0055, 0060, 0070), wherein the user life state information for each user is associated with a user id associated with the user (see: 0074, 0194);
registering, by the server, a partner associated with a partner server (see: 0045, 0063-0064; see also: 0048-0050);
receiving, by the server, filtered information from the partner associated with the partner server, wherein the filtered information is generated by the partner based on applying any of the life state information associated with the user id of the user (see: 0011 (ranked by location, demographic, geographic, and/or personality characteristics), 0074 (user ID), 0130 (offers ranked according to profile), 0194, Fig. 7 #755 & 760, Fig. 12); and
Though disclosing all of the above, Jones does not disclose:
receiving, by the server from the user, permissions granted to one or more partners associated with partner servers, to access the life state information associated with a user id associated with the user from the database accessible over the network,
maintaining, by the server, control over access to the user life state information according to permissions and gatekeeping features set by the user; and,
controlling, by the server in accordance with the permissions, access of the registered partner associated with the partner server to the user's life state information stored in the database;
receiving the filtered information made accessible to the partner by the permissions.
To this accord, Benson teaches a method which facilitates a matching service configured to selectively allow access to the user data by at least one provider (i.e., partner) based on the access control list, the method including receiving, by the server from the user, permissions granted to one or more partners associated with partner servers, to access the life state information associated with a user id associated with the user from the database accessible over the network (see: Fig. 2 (profile, interests, access control), col. 7 lines 40-46, col. 8 lines 22-24, col. 1 8line 65-col. 19 line 5),
maintaining, by the server, control over access to the user life state information according to permissions and gatekeeping features set by the user (see: Fig. 2 (access control), col. 8 lines 4-8, lines 26-35, & lines 59-60, col. 9 lines 16-29 & 44-45), and,
controlling, by the server in accordance with the permissions, access of the registered partner associated with the partner server to the user's life state information stored in the database (see: Fig. 2 (access control), col. 8 lines 4-8, lines 26-35, & lines 59-60, col. 9 lines 16-29 & 44-45), and,
receiving the information made accessible to the partner by the permissions (see: col. 8 lines 8-21, col. 9 lines 46-49).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of Jones to have utilized the known technique for controlling access to user data as taught by Benson in order to have improve communications between the users and advertisers of Jones using access controlled provided by the user and allowing only those providers which are likely to meet the needs and wants of the consumer (see: col. 4 lines 8-22).
Lastly, Jones does not disclose:
receiving the data through a firewall configured between a client computing system and the server, and,
controlling, by the server, frequency, type and volume of filtered information that is pushed by the partner to the user computing system in accordance with the gatekeeping features set by the user of the user computing system as identified by the user id.
To this accord, Garg disclosing a system and method for advertising that utilizes a firewall configured between a client computing system and the server (see: 0068), and,
controlling, by the server, frequency, type and volume of filtered information that is pushed by the partner to the client device in accordance with the gatekeeping features (see: 0101-0103, Fig. 11-12, Fig. 15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have modified the invention of Jones to have included the noted features as taught by Garg because the incorporation of such features is no more than the combination of known prior art elements according to their established function yielding predictable results. Moreover, applying the known technique of Garg to the invention of Jones would have improved the invention of Jones by allowing users to customize settings for receiving the filtered information according to their personal needs (see: Garg, 0100), thereby enhancing the user experience.
6. The computer-implemented method of claim 5, further comprising receiving, for a given user id, updates to the corresponding user's life state information (see: Jones: 0089, 0116, 0127, 0136, 0147, Fig. 6 (635), Fig. 7 (750)).
Regarding claim 7, Jones discloses a filtered information pushing mechanism comprising:
a relational database accessible over a network (see: Fig. 1 #120 & 130, 0055, 0060, 0070);
a server of an information delivery system (see: Fig. 1, 0058-0059, 0062), the server configured to:
receive user life state information about and relevant to a user's life from a user who is a registered member of the information delivery system, the user life state information including:(a) demographic information, (b) social information, and (c) psychological information (see: 0008 (user registers to receive offers), 00448, 0066, 0070);
Note: 0070 describes where the profile includes age, gender, income (demographic information), race, family size, political affiliation, clubs, activities, societal memberships (social information), and personality information (psychological information);
store attributes corresponding to the life state information in the relational database, wherein the user life state information for each user is associated with a user id associated with the user (see: Fig. 1 #120 & 130, 0055, 0060, 0070);
register a partner associated with a partner server with the information delivery system (see: 0045, 0063-0064; see also: 0048-0050);
receive filtered information from the partner associated with the partner server, wherein the filtered information is generated by the partner based on applying any of an intended user’s life state information of an intended user (see: 0011 (ranked by location, demographic, geographic, and/or personality characteristics), 0130 (offers ranked according to profile), Fig. 7 #755 & 760).
Though discloses the above, Jones does not disclose:
control access of the registered partner associated with the partner server to the user's life state information stored in the database in accordance with security features set by the user for the user’s own life state information;
life state information made accessible to the partner by the permissions; and,
receiving tracking information associated with the user id of the intended user from the partner server to facilitate updating of the intended user’s life state information.
To this accord, Benson discloses control access of the registered partner associated with the partner server to the user's life state information stored in the database in accordance with security features set by the user for the user’s own life state information (see: Fig. 2 (access control), col. 8 lines 4-8, lines 26-35, & lines 59-60, col. 9 lines 16-29 & 44-45),
receiving filtered information based on life state information made accessible to the partner by the permissions (see: col. 8 lines 8-21, col. 9 lines 46-49), and,
receiving tracking information associated with the user id of the intended user from the partner server to facilitate updating of the intended user’s life state information (see: col. 11 lines 12-15, col. 12 lines 9-14, col. 14 lines 4-8 & 62-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of Jones to have utilized the known technique for controlling access to user data as taught by Benson in order to have improve communications between the users and advertisers of Jones using access controlled provided by the user and allowing only those providers which are likely to meet the needs and wants of the consumer (see: col. 4 lines 8-22).
Lastly, Jones does not disclose:
a firewall or receiving data through the firewall, and,
push the filtered information to the intended user at a frequency at least in part determined by the user.
To this accord, Garg disclosing a system and method for advertising that utilizes a firewall for receiving and transmitting data (see: 0068), and,
push the filtered information to the intended user at a frequency at least in part determined by the user (see: 0101-0103, Fig. 11-12, Fig. 15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have modified the invention of Jones to have included the noted features as taught by Garg because the incorporation of such features is no more than the combination of known prior art elements according to their established function yielding predictable results. Moreover, applying the known technique of Garg to the invention of Jones would have improved the invention of Jones by allowing users to customize settings for receiving the filtered information according to their personal needs (see: Garg, 0100), thereby enhancing the user experience.
8. The filtered information pushing mechanism of claim 7, wherein the server is further configured to receive permissions granted to one or more partners associated with partner servers, to access the life state information stored in the relational database (see: Benson: col. 7 lines 40-46, col. 8 lines 4-8 & 22-35, col. 18 line 65-col. 19 line 5 (access control), col. 8 lines 59-60, col. 9 lines 16-29 & 44-45).
12. The filtered information pushing mechanism of claim 7, wherein the server is further configured to receive, for a given user ID, updates to the corresponding user's life state information (see: Jones: 0089, 0116, 0127, 0136, 0147, Fig. 6 (635), Fig. 7 (750)).
Claims 2 and 9 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jones in view of Benson and Garg as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Haveliwala (US 7716223).
Regarding claim 2 and parallel claim 9, Jones in view of Benson and Garg disclose all of the above as noted, including establishing in the database a data structure including attribute fields and where each of the fields is associated with a value (see: Jones, 0070). Jones, however, does not expressly teach where the data structure includes attribute fields related to one another, and, wherein the data structure includes multiple levels such that an attribute field at a lower level provides more detailed information and value than a corresponding field at a higher level.
To this accord, Haveliwala teaches a system and method which establishes a data structure for a user to input information regarding the user including, the data structure including fields related to one another, wherein each of the fields is associated with a value, and wherein the data structure includes multiple levels such that an attribute field at a lower level provides more detailed information and value than a corresponding field at a higher level (see at least: Fig. 2-4 and 9, col. 3 lines 30-39).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have utilized the known features as taught by Haveliwala in the system of Jones in view of Benson and Garg since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Moreover, one of ordinary skill would have understood that the teachings of Haveliwala would have enabled a user to variably adjust the degree to which their interests influence the information presented to them (see: col. 1 lines 42-44), thereby enhancing the user experience.
Claims 3-4 and 10-11 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jones in view of Benson, Garg, and Haveliwala s applied to claims 2 and 9 above, and further in view of Patterson (US 2011/0086623).
Regarding claim 3 and parallel claim 10, Jones in view of Benson, Garg, and Haveliwala discloses all of the above but does not disclose automatically populating the fields of the data structure with a set of baseline values.
To this accord, Patterson discloses automatically populating the fields of the data structure with a set of baseline values (see: 0111 (registry 12 may be pre-populated with basic contact information), 0101 (user's user profile is pre-populated with basic customer information), 0113 (user profile may be pre-populated with basic information), Fig. 17, Fig. 19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have modified the invention of Jones in view of Benson, Gar, and Haveliwala to have utilized the automated pre-population of a user profile as taught by Patterson to have enabled more efficient creating of default user profiles that are customizable by a user (see: Patterson: 0111)
Regarding claim 4 and parallel claim 11, the combination discloses wherein the server is further configured to receive update data for the baseline values and non-baseline values to reflect the user's life state (see: 0101 (user only has to supplement and/or edit the information), 0111 (default profile may then be customized by users), 0113 (profile may be edited, user has to supplement/edit the default information)).
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 WILLIAM J ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1443. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00-4:00.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. 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.
WILLIAM J. ALLEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/WILLIAM J ALLEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619