DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after 3/16/2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to the Application and claims filed 04/02/2025.
Claims 1-11 have been examined and are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
Acknowledgement is hereby made of receipt of Information Disclosure Statements filed by applicant on 04/02/2025.
(AIA ) Examiner Note
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged. However, Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows: Applicant’s provisional application does not mention nor contemplate the “large language model” features as presently recited in the current independent claims. The earliest priority afforded the present claims is therefore 04/02/2025 – the date of the presently filed claims.
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original non-provisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Potentially allowable subject matter
Claims 3-6 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 as set forth in this Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or (for pre-AIA ) 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor, a joint inventor, or (for pre-AIA ) the applicant regards as the invention.
Dependent claim 9, recites in part the following: “…updates to said compatibility vectors and thematic interest models.” However, this limitation lacks proper antecedent basis. The terms “compatibility vectors” and “thematic interest models” have not previously been introduced nor referenced in this claim nor in the parent claims. Therefore, it is unclear what “said compatibility vectors and thematic interest models” the applicant is attempting to reference. Because this limitation at least lacks proper antecedent basis, the claim limitation is indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (i.e. a judicial exception) without significantly more.
Per step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the claims are directed towards a process, machine, or manufacture.
Per step 2A Prong One, the claims recite specific limitations which fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the MPEP 2106, as follows:
Per Independent claim 1:
determine from the plurality of user profiles a set of preferred partner characteristics for the first user by way of a progression module based on chapter completion thresholds;
…a preferred partner matched based on the set of preferred partner characteristics of the first user…,
the preferred partner corresponding to one or more thematic categories and relevant digital book chapters of a second user
Per Independent claim 11:
analyzing said chapters via a large language model to extract emotional or personality traits; generating a user vector and a partner vector for each user; comparing user vector of a first user with partner vector of a second user to compute a bidirectional compatibility score; …recommend [a] match…, the recommended match is a function of said bidirectional compatibility score
The limitations of claim 1 and 11 fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG. Specifically, these limitations fall within the group Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity (e.g. fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
That is, these steps of claim 1 and 11, as drafted, are a business decision to provide a matchmaking service which recommends a user match based on gathered user targeting criteria (i.e. “preferred partner characteristics” per claim 1, and vectors, e.g. of personality traits, per claim 11) as gleaned from, per claim 1, a user’s viewing or reading of another user’s profile information, and per claim 11, from the user inputs, and thus falling into Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. There is no technical problem being solved and no technical solution recited for solving a technical problem. Note per claim 11, the various steps are not actually claimed as being related; e.g. steps (d), (e), (f) do not depend on (a), (b), or (c), except to reference a first user.
Furthermore, the mere nominal recitation of a generic processor and interface of claim 1 and generic data structure and allusion to a large language model does not take the claim limitation out of the enumerated grouping. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Per step 2A Prong 2, the Examiner finds that the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Although there are additional elements, other than those noted supra, recited in the claims, none of these additional element(s) or a combination of elements as recited in the claims apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. As drafted, the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the aforementioned concepts or, link them to a field of use (i.e. in this case online matchmaking) or, serve as insignificant extra-solution activity (data-gathering, storage, transmittal, and display). The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to implement the idea but are not technical in nature. Simply implementing the abstract idea on or with generic computer components is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
These additional limitations per claim 1 are as follows: “A matchmaking system comprising an interface operable to: electronically receive a plurality of user profiles, each profile structured as a digital book comprising one or more thematic categories with multiple chapters of a respective user; and electronically receive a first request for matching, wherein the first request for matching corresponds to a prompt or an action by said first user to retrieve recommended matches via the interface; a processor coupled to the interface and operable to: cause the display of a graphical representation of a preferred partner … on a graphical user interface of the first electronic device; wherein the interface is further operable to receive from the first electronic device of the first user a first positive preference indication associated with the graphical representation of the second user on the graphical user interface, the first positive preference indication associated with a swiping gesture performed on the graphical user interface, wherein the gesture comprises a swiping gesture of the one or more thematic categories and relevant digital book chapters of the second user.”
These additional limitations per claim 11 are as follows: “A method for matchmaking, comprising: (a) receiving user inputs structured as one or more chapters of a digital book;… (c) storing said traits in a data structure comprising a list or graph-based data structure;… (f) displaying a recommended match to the first user,…”
However, these elements do not present a technical solution to a technical problem; i.e. Applicant’s invention is not a technique nor technical solution for “electronically receiving” data such as user profiles, nor is the structure of data as a book with categories and associated chapters. Applicant’s invention is not receiving data in the form of a user request, etc… nor is it a technique of displaying data regardless of what the data represents, e.g. a preferred partner or a match, etc…nor is it a technical improvement or technique of storage. The additional elements do not recite a specific manner of performing any of the steps core to the already identified abstract idea. Instead, these features merely serve to generally “apply” the aforementioned concepts or, link them to a field of use or, are insignificant extra-solution activity to the already identified abstract idea and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application thereof.
Per Step 2B, the Examiner does not find that the claims provide an inventive concept, i.e., the claims do not recite additional element(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception recited in the claim. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the independent claims were considered as merely serving to generally “apply” the aforementioned concepts via generically described computer components (e.g. by one or more processors, using an interface) and “link” them to a field of use (i.e. online matchmaking), or as insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g. data-gathering, transmittal, storage, or display). For the same reason these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept; i.e. the same analysis applies here in 2B. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and conventional data gathering cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. So, upon revaluating here in step 2B, these elements are determined to amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (i.e. a server) and/or gather and transmit data which is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field; i.e. note the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs Court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(ll) indicate that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, alone and in combination, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, as found supra, nor provide an inventive concept, and thus the claims are not patent eligible.
As for the dependent claims, the dependent claims do recite a combination of additional elements. However, these claims as a whole, considered either independently or in combination with the parent claims, do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application thereof nor do they provide an inventive concept.
For example, dependent claim 2 recites the following: “…wherein the processor is further operable so that each chapter supports at least three or more expressive response formats selected by the user.” However, receiving input from a user expressed via three or more formats, e.g. pushing different buttons or making various gestures, or perhaps voice input, etc… is not applicant’s invention but instead at this high-level of generality appears to be nothing more than claiming mere data-acquisition not limited to any single format, and not technical in nature, but instead merely allowing for multiple data acquisition formats; as such, this appears to be routine and conventional and the number of generic response formats used by a user does not change this fact. As such, this is not significantly more than the already identified abstract idea.
Therefore, the Examiner does not find that these additional claim limitations integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor provide an inventive concept. Instead, these limitations, as a whole and in combination with the already recited claim elements of the parent claims, are not significantly more than the already identified abstract idea. A similar finding is found for the remaining dependent claims.
For these reasons, the claims are not found to include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and therefore the claims are not found to be patent eligible.
Please see the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019 (found at http://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidance-and-training-materials).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 (AIA )
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 8, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Rad et al. (U.S. 2016/0154569 A1; hereinafter, "Rad") in view of Garijo et al (U.S. 2008/0263014 A1; hereinafter, "Garijo")
Claim 1:
Pertaining to System Claim 1, Rad as shown teaches the following:
A matchmaking system comprising an interface operable to:
electronically receive a plurality of user profiles (Rad, see at least Figs. 1A-1F and [0010]-[0012], e.g.: “…a method for profile matching comprises receiving a plurality of user profiles, each user profile comprising traits of a respective user.…”), each profile structured as […] comprising one or more thematic categories […] (Rad, see citations noted supra, in view of at least [0056], [0068]-[0070], teaching an aspect [thematic category] of a user’s profile may include the user’s “attractiveness” [a particular thematic category], e.g. “…Sally's profile contains feedback from other users ranking the attractiveness of Sally's profile. Matching server 20, in this example, averages that data; Sally's profile average is 6…”; see also at least [0096]-[0097], teaching: “..a plurality of user profiles is presented to user 14… The display may show an image of a suggested user and one or more aspects [thematic categories] of the suggested user's profile information. In some embodiments, the combination of image and one or more aspects [thematic categories] of profile information is displayed as "card" 88 representing the suggested user.… User 14 may be presented with a summary of information regarding a suggested user. The summary may include one or more of [one or more thematic categories]: a picture, an icon, name, location information, gender, physical attributes, hobbies, or other profile information… terminal 10 may also display "information" button 84 which allows user 14 to request matching server 20 to retrieve and display more information about the presented user…”); and
electronically receive a first request for matching, wherein the first request for matching corresponds to a prompt or an action by said first user to retrieve recommended matches via the interface (Rad, see citations noted supra, e.g. again at least Figs. 1, 2 and [0010]-[0012], e.g.: “…The method further comprises receiving a request for matches from a first user, the first user associated with a first user profile…”; and per [0042]-[0044]: “…As an example only, consider that user 14 has submitted a search request to matching server 20. Matching server 20 may search through pool 30, identify results, and communicate result list 31 to user 14 which would contain other users for whom matching server 20 had created a profile and who were identified through a search and selection process…”; applicant’s “action by said first user” reads on any action Rad’s user inherently must take to enable the communication of the request which Rad teaches his system has received.),
a processor coupled to the interface and operable to:
determine from the plurality of user profiles a set of preferred partner characteristics for the first user […] based on […] completion thresholds (Rad, see citations noted supra, including also at least [0068]-[0069], e.g.: “…matching server 20 may present an entity [from the plurality of user profiles] to user 14, prompting user 14 to rate [i.e. perform completion of requested rating task] the attractiveness [regarding preferred partner characteristics] of the entity on a scale from 1-9... Matching server 20 may further be configured to collect such responses and store them;… Matching server 20 may further be configured to compute the average of such responses for the entity, and store this number as well. In various embodiments, these values may be used in order to help in the matching process…”; applicant’s “completion thresholds” reads on Rad’s user 14’s completion of a threshold action in response to viewing another entity’s/user’s profile – e.g. a rating of attractiveness of another entity/user; i.e. the user must complete a view of at least some aspects of an entity’s/user’s profile and then execute a rating regarding attractiveness, thus completing a threshold action in regards to the provided/viewed profile information.);
cause the display of a graphical representation of a preferred partner, matched based on the set of preferred partner characteristics of the first user, on a graphical user interface of the first electronic device, (Rad, see again Figs. 6-9 and 12A-D, and citations noted supra, e.g. again per at least [0068]-[0069]: “…Thus, in various embodiments, users [preferred partner] whose attractiveness rating [preferred partner characteristics] are similar [matched based on the set of preferred partner characteristics of the first user] will be more likely to appear [the display of a graphical representation of such partner] in each other's result list. Further, a user may indicate that they only want profiles in their result list whose average attractiveness rating is higher than an indicated threshold… matching server 20 may populate user's 14 result list [cause the display] from the pool only with profiles whose average rating is at 6 or above, etc…”; see also [0096]-[0098]) the preferred partner corresponding to one or more thematic categories […] of a second user (Rad, see citations noted supra, e.g. [0068]-[0069], and [0096]-[0098] teaching: “…If Sally is currently within the one-mile radius of Harry and matching server 20 determines her profile information matches Harry's preferences, matching server 20 will present Harry one or more aspects [thematic categories] of Sally's profile information…”); and
wherein the interface is further operable to receive from the first electronic device of the first user a first positive preference indication associated with the graphical representation of the second user on the graphical user interface, the first positive preference indication associated with a swiping gesture performed on the graphical user interface, (Rad, see citations noted supra, e.g. again Figs. 6-9 and [0099]-[0100] e.g.: “…FIGS. 7 and 8 are diagrams of embodiments of the display from FIG. 6 showing the effect of a left swipe gesture (FIG. 7) and the effect of a right swipe gesture (FIG. 8)… Users 14 may also express approval [a first positive preference indication] of a presented user [associated with the graphical representation of the second user] by performing a right swipe gesture…”), wherein the gesture comprises a swiping gesture of the one or more thematic categories […] of the second user (Rad, see citations noted supra, including also at least figs. 6-9 and [0096]-[0100], teaching, e.g.: “…The display may show an image of a suggested user and one or more aspects [thematic categories] of the suggested user's profile information. In some embodiments, the combination of image and one or more aspects [thematic categories] of profile information is displayed as "card" 88 representing the suggested user… users 14 may navigate through the set of presented users by swiping through stack of cards 88. Users 14 may also express approval of a presented user [second user] by performing a right swipe gesture or express disapproval by performing a left swipe gesture. In some embodiments, user 14 performs a swiping gesture by moving a finger or other suitable object across a screen of terminal 10… matching server 20 creates a match between two users 14 after both users 14 have expressed a preference for each other's profiles…”).
Although Rad teaches the limitations above, and teaches user profiles structured with aspects [thematic categories], and he teaches per at least [0090]: “matching server 20 may import profiles from other social networking systems…”, he may not explicitly teach his aspects [thematic categories] of his user profile are each structured as part of a digital book with multiple chapters nor the other nuances as recited below. However, regarding these features, Rad in view of Garijo teaches the following:
[each profile structured as] a digital book [comprising one or more thematic categories] with multiple chapters [of a respective user];… [thematic categories] and relevant digital book chapters (Garijo, see at least [0059]-[0060], e.g.: “…The events occurring in the user's life or "MY LIFE": allows the user to manage his or her autobiographical accounts [user profile], automatically organized in registers, such as books [digital books] and chapters [each profile structured as a digital book with multiple chapters]…”; and per [0180]-[0181], e.g.: “…Regarding the events occurring in the user's life or "MY LIFE", people narrate their life by relating past/present/future to make adaptive decisions and to give consistency and meaning to their life. In one embodiment of the present invention, books or albums are constructed with the autobiographical accounts of the user, i.e., autobiographies (books, albums) are constructed from the autobiographical marking (when/for) and from the social context marking (work/family/personal/etc.). For example: "My work life", "My family life", "My personal life", etc… A book covers [comprises] all the narrative periods of the user for a certain role, emotion, group, context/subcontext marker value [one or more thematic categories]. Each book is divided into chapters, comprising the items associated with a specific autobiographical marker value [thematic category].)
progression module based on chapter completion thresholds (Garijo, see citations noted supra, e.g. at least [0181], in view of [0153]: “…To conduct a search, the user can do so by free text as he or she would do in any search engine or by making use of the marker model. In this second case there are two options, searching by specific marker values…”; i.e. a user may complete a search for a chapter of a book via searching an autobiographical marker value, for which a chapter may have been created, and the user is provided with the associated chapter information; applicant’s chapter completion threshold reads on Garijo’s user’s view/receipt of requested chapter information.)
Therefore, the Examiner understands that the limitations in question are merely applying known techniques of Garijo (directed towards techniques of structuring user profile information such as a digital book which covers [comprises] all the narrative periods of a user for a certain role, emotion, group, context/subcontext marker value [one or more thematic categories], where each book is divided into chapters, comprising the items associated with a specific autobiographical marker value [thematic category], and enabling a user to search, find, and receive chapter information through searching for specific marker values [a progression module based on chapter completion thresholds]) which are applicable to a known base device/method of Rad (already directed towards system/method of collecting and matching structured profile information and allowing users to search through such profiled information) to yield predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the techniques of Garijo to the device/method of Rad such that Rad’s user profile information is also structured as a digital book comprising one or more thematic categories with multiple chapters of a respective user and Rad’s determination of a preferred set of partner characteristics, from the plurality of his user profiles is also based on Garijo’s technique which enables a user to search for a chapter of a book via searching an autobiographical marker value and the user’s subsequent viewing/receipt of such specific chapters [chapter completion thresholds] of a user’s profile, because Rad and Garijo are analogous art in the same field of endeavor (at least G10H 2240/105) and because according to MPEP 2143(I) (C) and/or (D), the use of known technique to improve a known device, methods, or products in the same way (or which is ready for improvement) is obvious.
Claim 2:
Rad/Garijo teach the limitations upon which the below claim depends. Furthermore, Rad/Garijo teaches the following: The matchmaking system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further operable so that each chapter supports at least three or more expressive response formats selected by the user (Rad, see citations noted supra, including again at least Figs. 6-9 and [0096]-[0100], e.g. elements 82, 84, 86 as well as “swipe left” and “swipe right” [at least three or more expressive response element formats] each of which may be selected by the user to respond to the profile information and aspects being displayed.)
Claim 8:
Rad/Garijo teach the limitations upon which the below claim depends. Furthermore, Rad/Garijo teaches the following: The matchmaking system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further operable to enable users to evaluate and select preferred partner matched by interacting with individual or bundled chapters (Rad, see citations noted supra, including at least Fig. 9 and [0101]-[0103], e.g.: “…matching server 20 creates a match between two users 14 after both users 14 have expressed a preference for each other's profiles using like button 86 or the swiping gesture associated with like button 86. When matching server 20 creates a match, it may also provide the matched users with the ability to contact each other through a contact button. In some embodiments, when a match is created, matching server 20 may immediately (or soon thereafter) present an option to users 14 that have been matched to engage in a communication session (e.g., a chat, an SMS message, an e-mail, a telephone call, a voice communication session, a video communication session)… matching server 20 may be configured to allow direct communication between users when there has been a mutual expression of preference. This may be advantageous because users can avoid browsing, deleting, or responding to unwanted messages…”)
Claim 10:
Rad/Garijo teach the limitations upon which the below claim depends. Furthermore, Rad/Garijo teaches the following: The matchmaking system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further operable to comprise a red envelope messaging feature that enables milestone-based emotional communication governed by predefined triggers (Rad, see again citations noted supra, including at least Fig. 9 and [0101]-[0103], teaching e.g.: “…When matching server 20 creates a match [a milestone and a predefined trigger], it may also provide the matched users with the ability to contact each other through a contact button [a red envelope messaging feature]. In some embodiments, when a match is created, matching server 20 may immediately (or soon thereafter) present an option to users 14 that have been matched to engage in a communication session (e.g., a chat, an SMS message, an e-mail, a telephone call, a voice communication session, a video communication session)… matching server 20 may be configured to allow direct communication between users when there has been a mutual expression of preference. This may be advantageous because users can avoid browsing, deleting, or responding to unwanted messages…”).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Rad in view of Garijo and Dykstra et al (U.S. 8,554,640 B1; hereinafter, "Dykstra")
Claim 7:
Although Rad/Garijo teach the limitations upon which the below claim depends, they may not explicitly teach the following nuance. However, regarding this feature, Rad/Garijo in view of Dykstra teaches the following:
The matchmaking system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further operative to gate or limit access to subsequent chapter categories based on minimum threshold completions from prior categories (Dykstra, see at least [], e.g.: “…For instance, the usage metrics may include performance metrics, such as reading rate (how fast/slow one reads based on page turning rate, access velocity, etc.), complexity level, …, chapter sequence, completion status, and so on… At 812, recommendations [limiting of content] may be made to the user based on the usage metrics. As described above, such recommendations can be offered as further, related information when a user finishes [threshold completions] a particular content item [from prior categories]…”)
Therefore, the Examiner understands that the limitation in question is merely applying a known technique of Dykstra (directed towards a technique of limiting access to other content, e.g. only recommending related information when a user finishes [based on threshold completions] a particular content item [from prior categories]…) which is applicable to a known base device/method of Rad/Garijo (already directed towards providing a user with user profile content structured as a digital book comprising chapters) to yield predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique of Dykstra to the device/method of Rad/Garijo such that Rad/Garijo also only provide recommendations for further related user profile content chapters and associated categories of information [limit access to subsequent chapter categories] when a user finishes [based on threshold completions] a particular content item [from prior categories], because Dykstra is pertinent to the user profile information presenting system/method of Rad/Garijo and because according to MPEP 2143(I) (C) and/or (D), the use of known technique to improve a known device, methods, or products in the same way (or which is ready for improvement) is obvious.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Gutnik (US 2019/0205942 A1; hereinafter, “Gutnik”) in view of Garijo, further in view of White (US 2022/0398632; hereinafter, “White”).
Claim 11:
Pertaining to Method Claim 11, Gutnik as shown teaches the following:
A method for matchmaking, comprising:
receiving user inputs (Gutnik, see at least [0073], teaching, e.g.: “…The user-preference vector may be regularly updated to track the changing preferences of the user. Updates to the user-preference vector may be based on updates to the social graph with regard to the user. The user-preference vector may be individualized for each user based on direct input [receiving user input] from the user (e.g., the user specifies that she likes Mexican food, does not like deli food, etc.), or based on online social-networking activity of the user.…”)
[…]
(d) generating a user vector and a partner vector for each user (Gutnik, see citations noted supra, and at least [0051]-[0054]: “…the social-networking system may generate a user-preference vector [user vector] for each user. The user-preference vector may have N dimensions. Each dimension may correspond to a preference of the user. As an example, and not by way of limitation, a user-preference vector may have 17 dimensions, as shown by Table 2…”; and per [0063]-[0065], Gutnik also teaches “prompt vector” [partner vector] for types of users, such as vendors, for whom the system may prompt a recommendation to a user, etc…);
(e) comparing user vector of a first user with partner vector of a second user to compute a bidirectional compatibility score (Gutnik,see citations noted supra, e.g. at least [0063]-[0065] teaching: “…create a prompt vector [partner vector] for each of the prompts [second users] and calculate the difference between each of the prompt vectors and the user-preference vector [user vector of first user]. Then the social-networking system may select the most similar [bidirectional compatibility score] prompt vector to send to the user. This process may be similar to the process for selecting menu item recommendations as explained herein or similar to the process for identifying lookalike users, as explained herein…”; note per [0054], similarity may be a “Cosine Similarity” [bidirectional compatibility score]); and
(f) displaying a recommended match to the first user, wherein the recommended match is a function of said bidirectional compatibility score (Gutnik, see citations noted supra, e.g. [0063]-[0065], teaching: “…Then the social-networking system may select the most similar [bidirectional compatibility score] prompt vector to send to the user.… at step 1460, the social-networking system may send the selected prompt to the client system of the first user for display [displaying a recommended match]…”)
Although Gutnik teaches the above limitations, he may not explicitly teach that his user’s input is structured as recited below. However, regarding this feature, Gutnik in view of Garijo teaches the following:
[user inputs] structured as one or more chapters of a digital book (Garijo, see citations noted supra, further in view of at least [0059]-[0060] and [0180]-[0181], e.g. “…The events occurring in the user's life or "MY LIFE": allows the user to manage his or her autobiographical accounts, automatically organized in registers, such as books and chapters. The invention allows the retrieval of all the user's information related to his or her digital life and his or her personalities in the network…”);
Therefore, the Examiner understands that the limitations in question are merely applying known techniques of Garijo (directed towards techniques of structuring user input information, such as profile information, structured as a digital book with one or more chapters) which are applicable to a known base device/method of Gutnik (already directed towards system/method of collecting and matching structured profile information for matching users to other users and/or items, each of which may be recommended to a user) to yield predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the techniques of Garijo to the device/method of Gutnik such that Gutniks’s received user profile input is also structured as one or more chapters of a digital book, because Gutnik and Garijo are analogous art in the same field of endeavor (at least G10H 2240/105) and because according to MPEP 2143(I) (C) and/or (D), the use of known technique to improve a known device, methods, or products in the same way (or which is ready for improvement) is obvious.
Although Gutnik/Garijo teach the aforementioned limitations and are directed towards systems/methods for personal information management, e.g. user profile management, and matching based on such information, including teaching receiving user profile input, in the form of a digital book with chapters, they may not explicitly teach the below claimed nuances directed towards analysis of such user input. However, regarding these features, Gutnik/Garijo in view of White teaches the following:
(b) analyzing said chapters via a large language model to extract emotional or personality traits (White, see at least [0050]: “…the personality profiler uses a natural language processing engine to analyze… information about users of the product…”; and per [0085], teaching: “…User input 220, for example via a client 110, may be input to the user profile database for the user and may be used to provide answers to questions in a personality quiz 216, which may then be analyzed by the AI engine 210 [e.g. a large language model] to extract personality trait information about the user, which is input to the entry in the user profile database 202…”; and per [0089]: “…a natural language processing engine 322 analyzes the social media text 320 to extract personality trait information and other information about the user 302, …”; as natural language processing [an LLM] is one type of AI, Examiner finds there is motivation to use or otherwise substitute an LLM for the AI which White explicitly teaches may be used to analyze user input because per MPEP 2143(I) (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is obvious. The motivation may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. Id. at 1366, 80 USPQ2d at 1649.);
(c) storing said traits in a data structure comprising a list or graph-based data structure (White, see Fig. 13A and citations noted supra, e.g. #1308 Add personality traits of user to user profile DB (database); Examiner notes that both lists and graph-based data structures were old and well-known techniques to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and both were within the level of skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have implemented White’s database, in which White teaches he stores his personality traits, as a list or graph-based data structure because MPEP 2143(I) (D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready
for improvement to yield predictable results)
Therefore, the Examiner understands that the limitation in question is merely applying a known technique of White (directed towards analyzing user profile input via AI engine to extract personality trait information) which is applicable to a known base device/method of Gtnik/Garijo (already directed towards a system/method of receiving user input in the form of chapters of a digital book) to yield predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique of White to the system/method of Gutnik/Garijo which receives user profile input in the form of digital book with chapters, such that Gutnik/Garijo’s chapter information is analyzed per White’s technique because White is pertinent to the user profile management system/method of Garijo and Gutnik and because according to MPEP 2143(I) (C) and/or (D), the use of known technique to improve a known device, methods, or products in the same way (or which is ready for improvement) is obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J SITTNER whose telephone number is (571)270-3984. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; ~9:30-6:30. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Waseem Ashraf can be reached on (571) 270-3948. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Michael J Sittner/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621