DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Priority
This application is a 371 of PCT/US23/32502 filed 9/12/2023, which claims priority to US Provisional Application No. 63/407,295 filed 9/16/2022.
Claims Status
Claims 1-20 are pending and stand rejected. 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 1-20 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 1-20, under Step 2A claims 1-20 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 8 as representative, claim 1 recites (emphasis added):
8. A non-transitory, computer-readable medium encoded with executable instructions that, when executed by a processing unit, perform operations comprising:
forming a first recommendation, for a first user of a networking site, of a second user of the networking site, at least in part based on a first profile of a first account of the first user on the networking site and a second profile of a second account of the second user on the networking site;
performing a first interaction between the first account and the second account;
receiving a request to reset the first profile;
producing an updated profile by maintaining a first portion of the first profile and resetting a second portion of the first profile; and
forming a second recommendation, for the first user, of the second user, at least in part based on the updated profile.
These limitations recite ‘certain methods of organizing human activity’. (see: MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). This is because claim 8 sets forth or describes forming user recommendations and managing user profiles. This represents managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities). Accordingly, under step 2A (prong 1) claim 8 recites an abstract idea because claim 8 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 8 does recite additional elements, including a non-transitory, computer-readable medium encoded with executable instructions that, when executed by a processing unit, perform operations, and, a networking site.
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 8 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 (e.g., networking site) 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 8 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 8, taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of claim 8 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 8 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,
electronic recordkeeping.
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of claim 8 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, representative claim 8 does not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Regarding dependent claims 9-14, dependent claims 9-14 recite more complexities descriptive of the abstract idea itself, and at least inherit the abstract idea of claim 8. As such, claims 9-14 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 9-14 also do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, considered both individually or as a whole. More specifically, claims 9-14 rely on at least the additional elements of claim 8, which are 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 9-14 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.
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 9-14 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and are therefore ineligible for patenting.
Regarding claims 1-7 (method), claims 1-7 recite at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claims 8-14 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, claims 1-7 are rejected under at least similar rationale.
Regarding claims 15-20 (apparatus), claims 15-20 recite at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claims 8-14 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, additional elements such as a processor and network interface 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 as discussed with respect to claims 8-14. Accordingly, claims 15-20 are rejected under at least similar rationale.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 8, 10-14, 15 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pineiro (US 2022/0100803).
Regarding claim 1, Pineiro teaches a method, comprising:
forming a first recommendation, for a first user of a networking site, of a second user of the networking site, at least in part based on a first profile of a first account of the first user on the networking site and a second profile of a second account of the second user on the networking site (see: 0011-0012, 0016, 0080, Fig. 19 (1902), 0081, Fig. 20 (2006));
performing a first interaction between the first account and the second account (see: 0004, 0012 (swipe down, swipe up), 0057, 0080, Fig. 19 (1903, 1904), 0081, Fig. 20 (2008, 2010), 0059 (edit dating interests, spirituality…), 0082, Fig. 20 (2110, 2112));
receiving a request to reset the first profile (see: 0054 (update details, such as data provided during registration), 0059 (edit interests, spirituality…), 0070-0071, Fig. 11-12);
producing an updated profile by maintaining a first portion of the first profile and resetting a second portion of the first profile (see: 0052 (profile update engine), 0054, 0059, 0070-0071, Fig. 11 (3022), Fig. 12); and
Note: the details edited by the user are understood as being reset, with the unedited details are maintained as registered.
forming a second recommendation, for the first user, of the second user, at least in part based on the updated profile (see: 0016, 0056, 0060, 0075, 0080-0081, Fig. 3 (304, 306), Fig. 16 (1601)).
Note: the discover and crush tabs are used to display matches. This is based on the current profile data of the requesting user. Once the user profile is edited, the discover/crush tabs provide new recommendations based on the edited .
3. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
performing a second interaction between the first account and the second account, wherein the first interaction is defined by the first user sending a like regarding at least a portion of the second profile (see: 0059, 0061, Fig. 3 (306, 314), 0081, Fig. 20 (2004)) and the second interaction is defined by the second user rejecting the like (Fig. 20 (2008), 0081 (then at 2008, the displayed profile is deleted from the crushes list)).
Note: Pineiro discloses a plurality of users that interact, including a first and second user. The first user may send a like with the second user responding, and vice versa.
4. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
performing a second interaction between the first account and the second account, wherein the first interaction is defined by the second user sending a like regarding at least a portion of the first profile (see: 0059, 0061, Fig. 3 (306, 314), 0081, Fig. 20 (2004)), and the second interaction is defined by the first user rejecting the like (Fig. 20 (2008), 0081 (then at 2008, the displayed profile is deleted from the crushes list)).
Note: Pineiro discloses a plurality of users that interact, including a first and second user. The second user may send a like with the first user responding, and vice versa.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the first portion includes at least one photograph of the first user (see: Fig. 3, Fig. 4, 0054, 0062-0063).
6. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
updating the first profile with a third portion, wherein the second recommendation is at least in part based on the third portion (see: 0052, 0070-0071, Fig. 11 (1102-1110)).
Note: elements 1102-1110 represent various portions of a profile that may be updated and used in subsequent recommendations, and are in addition to other portions of the profile like a body type, a height, an age, an ethnicity, and photographs.
7. The method of claim 1, further comprising: promoting the updated profile on the networking site (see: 0061 (boost their profile), 0069 (boosts the profile of the user and puts the user at the top of the line)).
Regarding claims 8 and 10-14 (CRM) and claims 15 and 17-20 (apparatus), claims 8, 10-14, 15, and 17-20 recite substantially similar limitations and scope as recited by claims and 3-7 and are rejected under at least similar rational.
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.
Claim(s) 2, 9 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pineiro in view of Miller (US 2022/0148097).
Regarding claim 2, Pineiro teaches all of the above but does not teach wherein the first interaction is defined by the first user skipping the second profile.
To this accord, Miller teaches a method for including pairing users for interaction (see: 0016, 0028). Miller enables a first interaction defined by the first user skipping the second profile (see: 0029 (pass indication (e.g., PASS), or no indication at all), 0063 (likes, dislikes, or passes on user 110B), 0077 (“Like, Nope, or skip on Sam”)).
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 Pineiro to have utilized the known method for skipping profiles as taught by Miller in order to have created a positive environment where users are either matched and able to engage further (e.g., both select a positive preference indication) or where users are able to be paired for future interactions (e.g., PASS or no preference indication), thus creating no rejection or negative thoughts toward other users (see: Miller5: 0029).
Regarding claims 9 and 16, claims 9 and 16 recite substantially similar limitations and scope as recited by claim 2 and are rejected under at least similar rational.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Klein (US 9,983,940) discloses online account reset, rollback, and backup (see: abstract).
Yerli (US 2013/0159885) discloses selective content display in social network including modifying an interest cloud of a user profile (see: 0100, 0107, Fig. 5-7).
(US 2023/0120441) ranked results may be presented with a photograph and certain other information (e.g., some or all of the matching user's profile, such as the user's first name, age, general location, and/or one of the topics selected or provided by the requesting user).
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
Prosecution Insights