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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 2-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claims are directed to a process (method as introduced in Claim 1), and/or device (Claim 8), and/or non-transitory computer-readable storage medium with executable instructions (Claim 15), thus Claims 1-20 fall within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claimed invention recites an abstract idea according to MPEP §2106.04. The independent claims which recite the following claim limitations as an abstract idea, are underlined below.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite (as represented by the language of Claim ?):
receiving, by a connection engine associated with a digital platform, a user input from each of a plurality of user devices associated with a plurality of users of the digital platform, wherein the user input comprises profile information associated with the plurality of users;
determining, by the connection engine, a compatibility score for the plurality of users based on analysis of the profile information of each of the plurality of users;
initiating, by the connection engine, consent verification for one or more social parameters of each of the plurality of users based on the analysis of the profile information;
identifying, by the connection engine, a match between one or more users of the plurality of users based on the compatibility score and the consent verification; and
transmitting, by the connection engine, a notification to the matched one or more users, the notification enabling the matched one or more users to securely communicate with each other.
The underlined claim limitations as emphasized above, as drafted, recite a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers the performance of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) in the form of matching users based on user profile data and preferences (it is noted that, consent represents a form of preference indication). Other than reciting a computer implementation, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from encompassing the performance of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people which represents the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity. But for the recitation of generic implementation of computer system components, the claimed invention merely recites a process for matching users, receiving user confirmation of the match and providing communication. For example, a user could, without the use of a computer, review personal and/or demographic information of multiple users, determine a degree of matching between them, request consent from each user, and then provide the consenting parties with contact information for enabling communication.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite additional elements such as:
a connection engine associated with a digital platform;
plurality of user devices;
computer-implemented method
a memory or a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium to store instructions; and
a processor or computer configured to execute the instructions in the memory or storage medium.
In particular, the additional elements cited above beyond the abstract idea are recited at a high-level of generality and simply equivalent to a generic recitation and basic functionality that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer technology components.
Accordingly, since the specification describes the additional elements in general terms, without describing the particulars, the additional elements may be broadly but reasonably construed as generic computing components being used to perform the judicial exception (see specification at [0042]-[0044]). These claimed additional elements merely recite the words “apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Thus, the additional claim elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, because the claims do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements, individually or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims:
Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 recite further elements related to the matching, consent, and data collection steps of the parent claims. These activities fail to differentiate the claims from the related activities in the parent claims and fail to provide any material to render the claimed invention to be significantly more than the identified abstract ideas, as outlined below.
Claim 2, 9, and 16 recites “wherein the one or more social parameters comprise one or more of: physical contact, meeting settings, or communication preferences parameters”, which further specifies specific types of data, but does not make the claims any less abstract.
Claim 3, 10, and 17 recites “wherein the profile information comprises information indicative of personal boundaries of the user”, which further specifies specific types of data, but does not make the claims any less abstract.
Claim 4 and 11 recites “updating, by the connection engine, the compatibility score based on feedback from the matched one or more users”, which specifies further steps related to determining a predicted value, but does not make the claims any less abstract. Specifying that the updating is performed by the connection engine does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept (as it is described with a high level of generality, as described above).
Claim 5, 12, and 18 recites “wherein determining the compatibility score comprises determining the compatibility score via a machine learning algorithm trained on historical data and user interaction outcomes”, which further specifies specific types of data, but does not make the claims any less abstract. Additionally, the machine learning algorithm (including training) is merely used as a tool for providing information and described at a high level of generality (in general terms, without describing the particulars). The machine learning algorithm may be broadly but reasonably construed as generic computing components being used to apply the judicial exception (see the above rejection of the parent claims for additional detail regarding additional elements).
Claim 6, 13, and 19 recites “wherein initiating the consent verification comprises validating, by the connection engine, user preferences regarding physical contact that comprises one or more of hand holding, walking, and personal space”, which specifies further steps related to determining a predicted value, but does not make the claims any less abstract. Specifying that the validating is performed by the connection engine does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept (as it is described with a high level of generality, as described above).
Claim 7, 14, and 20 recites “wherein initiating the consent verification comprises rendering, by the connection engine, a user interface on the user device, which enable the user to provide information corresponding to the one or more social parameters, the information being indicative of social boundaries that the user would like to set for a first meeting with a matched user”, which further specifies specific types of data, but does not make the claims any less abstract. Specifying that the rendering is performed by the connection engine does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept (as it is described with a high level of generality, as described above). Additionally, the user interface on the user device is merely used as a tool for providing information and described at a high level of generality (in general terms, without describing the particulars). The user interface may be broadly but reasonably construed as generic computing components being used to apply the judicial exception (see the above rejection of the parent claims for additional detail regarding additional elements).
The claims do not provide any new additional limitations or meaningful limits beyond abstract idea that are not addressed above in the independent claims therefore, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor do they provide significantly more to the abstract idea. Thus, after considering all claim elements, both individually and as a whole, it has been determined that the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Therefore, Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
The factual inquiries 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 nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-12, and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chittaluru et al. (Pub. No. US 2018/0330336 A1) in view of Chatterjee (Pub. No. US 2011/0142016 A1).
In regards to Claims 1, 8, and 15, Chittaluru discloses:
A computer-implemented method/system, comprising:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium/memory comprising instructions executable by a processor, the instructions to cause the processor to perform or control performance of operations that comprise: ([0050])
receiving, by a connection engine associated with a digital platform, a user input from each of a plurality of user devices associated with a plurality of users of the digital platform, wherein the user input comprises profile information associated with the plurality of users; ([0013]; [0014], users create profiles (user inputs) when signing up for the service; [0026], the service can be used by users through mobile devices; [0030], the mutually-agreeable location (MAL) service (connection engine) can be integrated with (i.e. associated with) one or more digital platforms (market place, dating/match making, or CRM); [0045], can include a plurality of parties (users with profiles))
determining, by the connection engine, a compatibility score for the plurality of users based on analysis of the profile information of each of the plurality of users; ([0011]; [0020]; [0040], a match value/degree is determined for each user’s profiles data, meeting data, and location data, use of all user profile information and meeting/location data to determine mutually agreeable location demonstrates compatibility between the users/profiles; [0044], further examples of the match score/degree demonstrating compatibility between users is the use of predetermined acceptable locations in the profiles (for example, having the same acceptable locations in profiles shows compatibility))
initiating, by the connection engine, consent verification for one or more social parameters of each of the plurality of users based on the analysis of the profile information; ([0011], locations recommendations are sent to the users and response regarding acceptable locations are received (acceptable locations represent consent); [0016], examples of social parameters in profiles that affect the location determination/compatibility (CCTV enabled, onsite security on staff, human staff on site, etc.))
identifying, by the connection engine, a match between one or more users of the plurality of users based on the compatibility score and the consent verification; ([0026], “…once the required parties agree on a location (chosen from the list of recommended places) and a match is made …”)
transmitting, by the connection engine, a notification to the matched one or more users, ([0026], “…a match is made, the MAL process initiates a calendar invite, reminder, or notification…”)
Chittaluru does not explicitly disclose that the invite/notification enables communication between the users, however, Chatterjee teaches:
the notification enabling the matched one or more users to securely communicate with each other ([0004], “Users can be matched based on the users' common interests and experiences…Each of the users can be notified that another user having the common interests and experiences is close by. A secure means of initiating communication can be provided to the users to facilitate communication between the users.”; [0040], “The notification can further include the match score and a list of the identified common items in the usage data. Identification information of the mobile devices can also be sent, such that a communication channel (e.g., phone call, text messaging, and online chat) can be opened…”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the system of Chittaluru so as to have included the notification enabling the matched one or more users to securely communicate with each other, as taught by Chatterjee in order to ensure that users can interact in a secure manner that makes them feel safe (Chatterjee, [0004]; [0027]; Chittaluru, [0004]; [0014]; [0030]; etc.).
In regards to Claims 2, 9, and 16, Chittaluru discloses:
wherein the one or more social parameters comprise one or more of: physical contact, meeting settings, or communication preferences parameters ([0014], meeting settings, “Preferences may include but are not limited to: time preferences, day of week preferences, location preferences (i.e., restaurants, coffee shops, retail stores, libraries, fire stations, police stations, etc.), convenience preferences (i.e., parking, max distance from home/office, max travel time, etc.), safety preferences (i.e., onsite staff, security camera/CCTV present, onsite security, crime index at the Zip/Zip+4, etc.), privacy preferences (e.g., visibility from public areas, availability of private rooms)…”)
In regards to Claims 3, 10, and 17, Chittaluru discloses:
wherein the profile information comprises information indicative of personal boundaries of the user ([0014], preference of the user regarding meeting location indicates personal boundaries that must be met (such as, but not limited to, locations where they are comfortable meeting, required security, etc.”)
In regards to Claims 4 and 11, Chittaluru discloses:
updating, by the connection engine, the compatibility score based on feedback from the matched one or more users ([0036], users can accept or reject the locations recommendations (feedback); [0027], is users do not agree (feedback, such as reject or accept), the scoring process is performed again (see [0011]; [0020]; [0040], a match value/degree is determined, as described above, in the parent claim rejections), reperforming the process for matching and location recommendations would involve updating the match scores/degrees (compatibility) for the users)
In regards to Claims 5, 12, and 18, Chittaluru discloses:
wherein determining the compatibility score comprises determining the compatibility score via a machine learning algorithm trained on historical data and user interaction outcomes (although Chittaluru does not use specific terminology, such as machine learning, it does describe processes that indicate the ability of the system to learn and apply that learning to future iterations, see at least [0011]; [0014], the location recommendation (using the compatibility score) process “applies a learning process” and “leverages intelligence” (see [0011]; [0020]; [0040], a match value/degree is determined (compatibility score), as described above, in the parent claim rejections); [0037], “This feedback survey and metadata behind the meeting may be used to enhance future applications of the recommendation process, improve the accuracy of the location attributes, and enhance user preferences.”, feedback/data received after the meeting and used to enhance/improve future implementation demonstrate historical data used for training)
Claim(s) 6, 7, 13, 14, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chittaluru in view of Chatterjee in further view of Furman et al. (Pub. No. US 2022/0156864 A1).
In regards to Claims 6, 13, and 19, Chittaluru/Chatterjee discloses the above system/method for setting up meeting with users (including user preferences). As can be seen above, the preferences can be related to a user’s safety and comfort with a situation. Chittaluru/Chatterjee also disclose the use of the meeting system for dating ([0012]; [0030]; etc.). Chittaluru/Chatterjee does not explicitly disclose preferences including physical contact, however, Furman teaches:
wherein initiating the consent verification comprises validating, by the connection engine, user preferences regarding physical contact ([0071], consent verification (via the contract verification and signing) includes verifying user preferences regarding physical contact (such as checking boxes to verify which types are acceptable), although Furman does not specifically recite physical contact that comprises one or more of hand holding, walking, and personal space, Furman does discuss an open-ended list of physical contact types, including categories that may include different items for different people (i.e. activities that people may find exciting, romantic, etc., see also [0022]), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the types of physical contact that users can prefer and agree on, in Furman, could include one or more of the items listed in the claim and that the specific type of activities would not significantly affect the performance, processing, or outcome of the invention).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the system of Chittaluru/Chatterjee so as to have included wherein initiating the consent verification comprises validating, by the connection engine, user preferences regarding physical contact that comprises one or more of hand holding, walking, and personal space, as taught by Furman in order to in order to ensure that users can interact in a secure manner that makes them feel safe (Furman, Abstract; [0027]; [0071]; [0147]; etc. Chatterjee, [0004]; [0027]; Chittaluru, [0004]; [0014]; [0030]; etc.).
In regards to Claims 7, 14, and 20, Chittaluru/Chatterjee discloses the above system/method for setting up meeting with users (including user preferences). As can be seen above, the preferences can be related to a user’s safety and comfort with a situation. Chittaluru/Chatterjee also disclose the use of the meeting system for dating (Chittaluru, [0012]; [0030]; etc.). Chittaluru/Chatterjee does not explicitly disclose preferences including specific social parameters and boundaries, however, Furman teaches:
wherein initiating the consent verification comprises rendering, by the connection engine, a user interface on the user device, which enable the user to provide information corresponding to the one or more social parameters, the information being indicative of social boundaries that the user would like to set for a first meeting with a matched user ([0061]; [0071], an interactable electronic contract is rendered on user devices for verifying consent, the interactable contract can be used to verify (checkboxes) one or more social parameters (activities a user agrees to), these parameters related to acceptable physical activities are indicative of social boundaries of a user, this interactable contract would serve as a user interface (however, in addition, Furman also discusses other interfaces that are rendered for the purpose of carrying out the inventions activities including the verification and contract, see also, at least [0163]-[0165], interfaces, such as apps, webpages, etc. can be provided to a user for the purposes of performing steps of the invention))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the system of Chittaluru/Chatterjee so as to have included wherein initiating the consent verification comprises rendering, by the connection engine, a user interface on the user device, which enable the user to provide information corresponding to the one or more social parameters, the information being indicative of social boundaries that the user would like to set for a first meeting with a matched user, as taught by Furman in order to in order to ensure that users can interact in a secure manner that makes them feel safe (Furman, Abstract; [0027]; [0071]; [0147]; etc. Chatterjee, [0004]; [0027]; Chittaluru, [0004]; [0014]; [0030]; etc.).
Additional Prior Art Identified but not Relied Upon
Clarke (Pub. No. US 2023/0113982 A1). Discloses matching users, users providing feedback and input to increase match accuracy, and users providing consent to physical interactions (see at least Abstract; [0034]; [0051]; [0313]-[0329]).
Dowling (WO 2016004468 A1). Discloses the matching users based on interaction purpose (see at least [0003]; [0076]-[0084]).
Nutall (WO 2023205855 A1). Discloses matching users and sending notifications that provide secure communications (see at least [0009]; [0030]; [0038]; [0049]).
Strahl (Pub. No. US 2013/0103950 A1). Discloses the sending of invitations to a group that includes allowing secure communications (see at least Abstract; Claim 1).
Whitfield et al. (Patent No. US 10,417,725 B2). Discloses consent management for users to consent in physical activities (see at least Abstract; column 2, lines 52-67; column 3, lines 25-51; etc.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAUN D SENSENIG whose telephone number is (571)270-5393. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10:00am-4:00pm.
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, Lynda Jasmin can be reached at 571-272-6872. 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.
/S.D.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3629
/NATHAN C UBER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626