DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA and is in response to communications filed on 6/30/2026 in which claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of parent Application No. 17900365, filed on 8/31/2022.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the abstract idea as indicated below in Step 2A Prong One. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because of the reasons state below for Step 2A Prong Two. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because of the reasons stated below for Step 2B.
STEP 1: TWO CRITERIA FOR SUBJECT MATTER ELIGIBILITY
First, the claimed invention must be to one of the four statutory categories. 35 U.S.C. 101 defines the four categories of invention that Congress deemed to be the appropriate subject matter of a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter.
The claims fall into the category of process in a computer system environment that is tangibly embodied in a manner so as to be executable.
Second, the claimed invention also must qualify as patent-eligible subject matter, i.e., the claim must not be directed to a judicial exception unless the claim as a whole includes additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception. The judicial exceptions (also called "judicially recognized exceptions" or simply "exceptions") are subject matter that the courts have found to be outside of, or exceptions to, the four statutory categories of invention, and are limited to abstract ideas, laws of nature and natural phenomena (including products of nature).
STEP 2A: TWO PRONGS
PRONG 1: RECITES ABSTRACT IDEA, LAW OF NATURE, NATURAL PHENOMENON
Claims 1-20 are directed to an abstract idea, specifically, a mental process – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Independent claim 1 recites in part:
A … method comprising:
in response to detecting an activity event indicating a first end-user has accessed an application, … identifying end-users of the application who are connections of the first end-user, wherein updating comprises:
…;
…;
comparing the first and second lists; and
…; and in response to receiving a query:
processing the query by reading data records from the database that identify end-users of the application who are connections of the first end-user ….
The limitations above are broadly and reasonably interpreted as a mental process, as a form or mental evaluation or judgement. For example, one can mentally observe a list of friends or connections based on interactions.
PRONG TWO: DOES NOT INTEGRATE INTO PRACTICAL APPLICATION
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The computer-implemented method is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The limitation of “updating an application-to-connection database with data records”, “obtaining a first list of connections of the first end-user; obtaining a second list of connections of the first end-user;”, “updating the database based on the comparison”, and “and returning data indicating the identified end-users” as drafted, amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity, as a form of collecting, displaying, and manipulating data. The term “updating” is broad, and consistent with the specification as in paragraph [0025], can include “add a new data record, or update an existing data record”, which is a form of collecting data, and updating fields which does not provide integration into a practical application and is a form of recordkeeping. See MPEP 2106.05(g) – Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity.
The claim limitations are abstract ideas are performed by as “computer-implemented”, in a “system”, “apparatus”, but general computer components such as these don’t provide integration into a practical application. The specification offers only general open-ended descriptions of a computing device, without any technological details of how one operates, and the specification does not describe any particular improvement in the technology. Accordingly, these recitations represent further mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer, by invoking generic computer components as a tool under MPEP 2106.05(f) or generally linking the abstract idea to the field of use of computing components under MPEP 2106.05(h).
Looking at the claim limitations as an ordered combination and taking the claim as a whole, there still is not integration into a practical application. The claims also don’t appear to improve the functioning of a computer or require the use of a specific machine. For instance, the conclusory step of the claims is identifying users of an application that are also connections of the first user and returning data indicating as such. The terms in this limitation are both abstract and vague. Returning data that is an indication could be many different things in this context. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they don’t impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
STEP 2B: DOES NOT AMOUNT TO SIGNIFICANTLY MORE
As per MPEP 2106.05(II) the considerations discussed above for mere instructions to apply the exception and merely linking to a field of use are carried over for Step 2B.
The computing device invoking service components remain mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Similarly, the “processing” and “reading” abstract ideas are performed by these computing devices, and also remain mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer, or generally linking the abstract idea to the field of use of database retrieval.
Even considering these additional elements as a combination and taking the claim as a whole, they do not amount to significantly more. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The claim doesn’t include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2 and 5 are dependent on claim 1, and include updating the database based on thresholds and/or comparisons, which doesn’t provide integration into a practical application or add significantly more to the abstract idea because this is merely observation of data and judgement to produce a result. Similar claims 9, 12, 16 and 19 are also rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 3-4, and 6-7 are dependent on claim 1, and include more specific components of a database such as NoSQL, types of relationships, publications, and social graphs, which don’t provide integration into a practical application or add significantly more to the abstract idea because these are instances of non-functional descriptive components of a computing system. Similar claims 10-11, 13-14, 17-18, and 20 are also rejected for similar reasons.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 8-9, 11, 15-16, and 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Rathod et al. US 20160255139 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Rathod”).
As per claim 1, Rathod teaches:
A computer-implemented method comprising:
in response to detecting an activity event indicating a first end-user has accessed an application (Rathod, [0088] – Triggers. [0208] – Enables the end-user to log into an end-user account that may be managed by a network application),
updating an application-to-connection database with data records identifying end-users of the application who are connections of the first end-user (Rathod, [0087] – User data may comprises content(s) or database(s) of web site(s) and/or server(s) of web site(s), application associate data, database(s), resources, device associate data, web service associate data, data of social network, data, resources, digital contents and index data of search engines, data provided, updated, inputted, synchronized, shared, published by registered and/or un-registered users, connected users, 3.sup.rd parties providers, developers, partners, service providers, connected users, experts, automated sources), wherein updating comprises:
obtaining a first list of connections of the first end-user (Rathod, [0003], [0005] – Identify, access & select from presented list(s) of connections or connectable users. [0041] – Contact list(s) of connected or related users);
obtaining a second list of connections of the first end-user (Rathod, [0003], [0005] – Identify, access & select from presented list(s) of connections or connectable users. [0041] – Contact list(s) of connected or related users, wherein the list of connected users is interpreted as the first list and a list of related users is interpreted as a second list);
comparing the first and second lists (Rathod, [0171] – Compare connections); and
updating the database based on the comparison (Rathod, [0171] – Updating instructions. [0198] – Update or save & remove one or more structured or relational entries or records of updated status or details of particular activity, actions, event, transaction, status, note, user generated or shared content); and
in response to receiving a query:
processing the query by reading data records from the database that identify end-users of the application who are connections of the first end-user and returning data indicating the identified end-users (Rathod, [0005] – The suggestions may be provided responsive to an action by the user, such as the submission of a search query, accepting or sending a connection request, liking or commenting on an item, posting or answering a question on a social network. [0120] – One or more suggestions are provided to the user responsive to a query from the user for suggestions. [0160] – Matchmaking queries comprising: enabling user(s) to input, select, update one or more search criteria, match making preferences, filters, categories, keywords, lists, fields & associate value(s) or rang(s) of value(s), location(s), date(s) & time(s) or date & time range(s), select past, present or current or line & prospective or future type, type of users or connectable users or entities, user contacts or connections).
As per claim 2, Rathod teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein updating the database based on the comparison comprises removing data records for connections of the first end-user who are excluded from the first list of connections and included in the second list of connections (Rathod, [0109] – Dynamically present request(s) specific connection(s) or user(s) comprising presenting as per updated user preferences, user initiated re-ordering of list of connections, connections added, attached, detached, removed& updated by user, changes or updating of user's activities, actions, transactions, status, senses, events, behavior, locations, places, date & time, environment or surrounding associate with user including entities or things or items or people surrounding of user, views of user, selected or updated presentation settings & preferences including selection of type or presentation interface, filtering or sorting by user, selection of view(s) from list or types of views).
As per claim 4, Rathod teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the activity event is published to a publication/subscription service that triggers the updating of the application-to-connection database (Rathod, [0025], [089] – User(s) clients, type(s) of membership(s) including premium, paid, subscribers, subscriptions).
Claims 8-9, and 11 are directed to a system performing steps recited in claims 1-2, and 4 with substantially the same limitations. Therefore, the rejections made to claims 1-2, and 4 are applied to claims 8-9, and 11.
Claims 15-16, and 18 are directed to an apparatus performing steps recited in claims 1-2, and 4 with substantially the same limitations. Therefore, the rejections made to claims 1-2, and 4 are applied to claims 15-16, and 18.
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 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.
Claims 3, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rathod in view of Mietke et al. US 20220222225 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Mietke”).
As per claim 3, Rathod doesn’t explicitly teach NoSQL commands, however, Mietke teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the application-to-connection database comprises a NoSQL database having a single table with multiple row schemas for storing different types of relationship data between end-users and applications (Mietke, [0033] – NoSQL commands. [0037] – Identify links between tables include schema data (e.g., table names, column names, constraints, foreign keys, indexes, sequences, etc.). Security data (e.g., users)).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rathod’s invention in view of Mietke in order to include a schema for storing different types of relationship data; this is advantageous because it allows the system to identify links between schema data such as indexes and security data (Mietke, paragraph [0037]).
Claim 10 is directed to a system performing steps recited in claim 3 with substantially the same limitations. Therefore, the rejection made to claim 3 is applied to claim 10.
Claim 17 is directed to an apparatus performing steps recited in claim 3 with substantially the same limitations. Therefore, the rejection made to claim 3 is applied to claim 17.
Claims 5, 7, 12, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rathod in view of Pearson et al. US 20170199920 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Pearson”).
As per claim 5, Rathod doesn’t teach a time to live parameter for friends, however, Baird as modified with Pearson teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: determining a time to live parameter for the second list of connections; and
automatically deleting the second list of connections when a time indicated by the time to live parameter is reached (Pearson, [0051] – Therefore, a relationship decay function can be implemented in several different ways. For example, (1) a sliding window that only considers the most recent (say) 6 months of data).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rathod’s invention as modified in view of Pearson in order to delete friends based on a time to live parameter; this is advantageous because it considers decay of data which is a form of relevancy (Pearson, paragraph [0051]).
As per claim 7, Rathod teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the first list of connections is obtained from a social graph service, and wherein the second list of connections represents a cached version of previously obtained connection relationships (Pearson, [0367] – Update the cache of the previous state of the address book).
Claims 12 and 14 are directed to a system performing steps recited in claims 5 and 7 with substantially the same limitations. Therefore, the rejections made to claims 5 and 7 are applied to claims 12 and 14.
Claim 19 is directed to an apparatus performing steps recited in claim 5 with substantially the same limitations. Therefore, the rejection made to claim 5 is applied to claim 19.
Claims 6, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rathod in view of Ozog et al. US 9363221 B1 (hereinafter referred to as “Ozog”).
As per claim 6, Rathod doesn’t adequately teach bidirectional data records for comparison and updates, however, Ozog teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein updating the database comprises adding bidirectional data records to reflect that the first end-user is a connection of each identified end-user and each identified end-user is a connection of the first end-user (Ozog, column 22, lines 45-60 – Users may indicate relationships such as friend, foe, and neutral to other users. In another embodiment, friends or foes of users and associated relationships may be indicated based on the relationships between users (e.g., a friend of a foe is a foe, a foe of a foe is friendly/neutral, etc.)).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rathod’s invention in view of Ozog in order to include bidirectional data records; this is advantageous because it allows the system to keep updated lists based on various criteria such as location or time (Ozog, column 22, lines 20-28).
Claim 13 is directed to a system performing steps recited in claim 6 with substantially the same limitations. Therefore, the rejection made to claim 6 is applied to claim 13.
Claim 20 is directed to an apparatus performing steps recited in claim 6 with substantially the same limitations. Therefore, the rejection made to claim 6 is applied to claim 20.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 6/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments begin on page 6/30/2026 of Remarks where there are a total of 4 specific arguments with respect to the 101 Judicial Exception rejection. Each specific argument is addressed below.
Argument: Applicant argues in Remarks on page 7 that the claims are not directed to mental activity. They are concrete data-record operations against a database triggered by an external event signal indicating that a user has accessed an application.
In Response: detecting an activity event is broad terminology which could just mean that there’s an observation that someone (first-end-user) has accessed an application (a board game or some community). The claims recite that there are two lists of connections for comparison and updating, but there’s no differentiation between the list for any meaningful comparison to be obtained for updating a database which is a description of electronic recordkeeping which is part of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Argument: Applicant argues in Remarks on page 7 that a human cannot maintain a live, application-specific connection index, incrementally updated by asynchronous activity events in his or her head.
In Response: Due the broad language used in the claims, the limitations are directed to a mental activity. For instance, a human can indeed maintain two lists of friends (males and females) in his/her mind that access an application such as a boardgame club (chess club) and keep tabs on which friends join this group, which friends join another group, etc. and incrementally update based on these simple observations. Paragraphs [0026]-[0029] adds crucial clarifications of how applications are accessed and how this detection updates the database, but none of these clarifications are in the claims. Therefore, based on the broad limitations maintained in the claims, the 101 Judicial Exception rejection is maintained.
Argument: Applicant argues in Remarks on page 8 that claim 1 doesn’t merely invoke a generic computer to perform abstract tasks. It recites a particular arrangement of operations – “detecting an activity event indicating that a first end-user has accessed an application, updating an application-to-connection database through a comparison between a first list and a second list…”
In Response: The operations are described in broad terminology in the claims. The lists of connections have not differentiations that could lead to a meaningful comparison which doesn’t amount to significantly more or integrate the abstract idea into a meaningful application. The claim as a whole amounts to no more than mere recordkeeping which is insignificant extra-solution activity.
Argument: Applicant argues in Remarks on page 9 that the dependent claims contain significantly more because of specific clarifications including NoSQL database, cache eviction, bidirectional record maintenance, and explicit identification of the second list as a cached version of the previously-obtained connection relationships.
In Response: Applicant points out that the rejection contains conclusory characterizations of the dependent claims for rejecting under the Judicial Exception. However, each element is specifically addressed in the rejection with reasoning for why it isn’t significantly more. Rejection is maintained due to the broad language in the claimed limitations.
Applicant’s arguments begin on page 10 of Remarks where there are a total of 2 specific arguments. Each specific argument is addressed below.
Argument: First, Applicant argues in a general sense and in Remarks on page 10 that Rathod doesn’t address the problem of maintaining an application-to-connection index that is incrementally updated, in response to activity-event-triggers indicating that a specific end-user has accessed a specific application, using a delta computation between two enumerated lists of that end-user’s connections.
Argument: Applicant argues in Remarks on pages 10 and 11 that Rathod doesn’t disclose two list of connections. The Examiner merely interprets the disclosure in this way, but Rathod only discloses generic contact lists of related users.
In Response: Rathod teaches in paragraphs [0003] and [0005] – Identify, access & select from presented list(s) of connections or connectable users. In paragraph [0041] – Contact list(s) of connected or related users. This is more than sufficient to teach the limitations in the claim because, as stated earlier, the lists in the claim don’t have any differentiation between them. In fact, Rathod teaches more of a distinction in at least two lists than the claim language with “connections or connectable users.” Therefore, Rathod teaches the claimed limitation.
Argument: Applicant argues in Remarks on page 11 that Rathod doesn’t disclose the claimed “trigger” from an activity event indicating that a user has accessed the application.
In Response: Further search and consideration of Rathod shows that paragraph [0006] – teaches initiating or starting or establishing real-time …, triggering of one or more types of triggers, …, updates, as well as paragraph [0166] – Determination of particular type of activity, identification of data or updated data or status via linked systems, databases and one or more types of sources. Paragraph [0339] has the closest mapping - Database 115 may be configured to store a database of registered user's profile, accounts, posted or shared contents, settings, logs, contacts, connections, followers, status, groups, backups, messages, posts or contents, locations and other user and user related unique identities including contacts related data, followed sources, user data including logged activities. Paragraph [0025] of the specification describes an update processor being triggered when a user opens, invokes or otherwise accesses an application. Based on a reasonable interpretation in view of the specification, the prior art of record teaches the claimed limitation.
Argument: Applicant argues in Remarks on page Rathod doesn’t adequately teach an “application-to-connection database.”
In Response: Rathod teaches connections in a database where the database is updated based on activity of users. This is interpreted as an application-to-connection database. This isn’t a term of art, so unless there’s a clear definition from the specification which is missed by Rathod, Rathod teaches the claimed limitations based on a reasonable interpretation in view of the specification.
Argument: Applicant argues in Remarks on page12 that Rathod doesn’t teach dynamically removing data records for connections.
In Response: Reference Rathod teaches removing users from the database which reads on the limitation.
Argument: Applicant argues in Remarks on page 12 that Rathod doesn’t teach that the activity event is published to a subscription service.
In Response: Rathod teaches that the system is a subscription service which reads on the claimed limitation.
Argument: Applicant argues in Remarks on page 13-16 that there’s a lack of rationale for combination of references.
In Response: The 103 combination reasoning is provided: It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rathod’s invention in view of Mietke in order to include a schema for storing different types of relationship data; this is advantageous because it allows the system to identify links between schema data such as indexes and security data (Mietke, paragraph [0037]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Huhn et al. US 20120310956 A1 teaches generating friend recommendations using an address book graph and a friend graph (Abstract).
Brody et al. US 11061976 B1 teaches communication cells which are each associated with a communication from a corresponding user account of the plurality of user accounts and a direct user interface target area for display of one or more content elements (Abstract).
Yu et al. 9-04-2019, “Video Games and Social Relation”, https://scholarcommons.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1043&context=engl_176, 2019.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew J. Ellis whose telephone number is (571)270-3443. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kavita Stanley can be reached at (571) 272-8352. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
September 3, 2026
/MATTHEW J ELLIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2153
Prosecution Insights