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 .
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Demir et al. (US 2026/0147886 A1), hereinafter “Demir”, and in view of Campbell et al. (US 2017/0262514 A1), hereinafter “Campbell”.
As per claim 1, Demir teaches a method comprising:
“accessing user profile data associated with a plurality of users” at [0030] and Fig. 1;
(Demir teaches accessing a user profile store 120. The user profile store 120 stores user profile 130 of the users 115)
“generating a bit-set based on user profile data” at [0075] and Fig. 5;
(Demir teaches generating a bit index comprising bit array representing users having a particular attribute)
“receiving filter criteria” at [0036]-0039], [0082]-[0083] and Figs. 2, 7;
(Demir teaches the user interface 200 allows a user to input criteria for determining the subset of users based on various user attributes 210. The request analyzer 345 receives a request for determining a group of users based on user attributes)
“filter the bit-set based on filter criteria to identify a subset of users” at [0084]-[0086];
(Demir teaches the logical operation module 355 retrieves a bit index corresponding to each of the attribute values received in the request, performs the identified bit operation on the retrieved bit indexes and determines the requested group of users based on the result of the bit operation. For example, if a 1 value of the bit indicates the corresponding user has the attribute value corresponding to the bit index, the user is included in the group of users. All users having the bit value one as the result are included in the group)
Demir does not teach “comparing a quantity of users in the subset to a threshold, causing display of a notification based on the comparison” as claimed. However, Campbell teaches a method of searching for a subset of users based on search criteria, including the steps of:
“comparing a quantity of users in the subset to a threshold” at [0108] and Fig. 7A;
(Campbell teaches at [0108] and Fig. 7A a user interface which allows a user to search for a subset of users meeting the criteria defined in a first structured query (i.e., "People who currently work for Facebook and like Unicycling). Campbell also teaches broadening structured queries may be generated when the search results corresponding to the first structure query are below a threshold number of search results)
“causing display of a notification based on the comparison” at [0108] and Fig. 7A.
(Campbell teaches broadening structured queries may be generated and displayed when the search results corresponding to the first structure query are below a threshold number of search results. Campbell's Fig.7 shows a notification that includes a presentation of the quantity of the subset of a plurality of user (e.g., "2 People") and a display of the broadening structure queries 740 based on the determining that the quantity (e.g., "2") is below the user-defined threshold)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Campbell with Demir’s teaching by providing the user with broadening structure queries when the search results quantity are below a threshold number of search result because “when a structured query produced too few results, it may be useful to provide suggests for how to modify that query to generate additional result”, as suggested by Campbell at [0108].
As per claim 2, Demir and Campbell teach the method of claim 1 discussed above. Demir also teaches: wherein “the user profile data includes user attribute data, and wherein generating the bit-set comprises generating an array of binary value based on user attribute data” at [0056]-[0075].
As per claim 3, Demir and Campbell teach the method of claim 1 discussed above. Demir also teaches: wherein “receiving filter criteria comprises receiving a selection of one or more filter criteria from among a plurality of selectable filter criteria displayed in a graphic user interface” at [0036] and Fig. 2.
As per claim 4, Demir and Campbell teach the method of claim 3 discussed above. Demir also teaches: wherein “the selection includes a Boolean operator for combining multiple filter criteria” at [0036] and Fig. 2.
As per claim 5, Demir and Campbell teach the method of claim 1 discussed above. Demir also teaches: wherein “the user profile data includes user demographic data and device attribute data” at [0034]-[0038] and Fig. 2.
As per claim 6, Demir and Campbell teach the method of claim 1 discussed above. Demir also teaches: wherein “receiving filter criteria comprises receiving an input that selects a geographic region” at Fig. 2.
As per claim 7, Demir and Campbell teach the method of claim 6 discussed above. Demir also teaches: “segmenting the geographic region into a set of geo-cells having corresponding location identifiers, and wherein filtering the bit-set comprises filtering based on the location identifiers” at Fig.2.
As per claim 8, Demir and Campbell teach the method of claim 6 discussed above. Demir also teaches: wherein “receiving the input comprises receiving a selection of the geographic region form within a map image displayed in a graphical user interface” at Fig. 7A
As per claim 9, Demir and Campbell teach the method of claim 1 discussed above. Campbell also teaches: wherein “the threshold comprises a minimum threshold value for the quantity of user in the subset” at [0108].
As per claim 10, Demir and Campbell teach the method of claim 1 discussed above. Campbell also teaches: wherein “comparing the quantity comprises determining that the quantity of users in the subset is below the threshold” at [0108].
As per claim 11, Demir and Campbell teach the method of claim 10 discussed above. Campbell also teaches: wherein “the notification includes a message selected from among a plurality of messages based on determining that the quantity is below the threshold” at Fig. 7A.
As per claim 12, Demir and Campbell teach the method of claim 1 discussed above. Campbell also teaches: wherein “causing display of the notification comprises causing display a presentation of the quantity of user in the subset” at Fig. 7A.
As per claim 13, Demir and Campbell teach the method of claim 1 discussed above. Demir also teaches: “generating a graphical user interface that comprises a display of one or more menu elements corresponding to user attributes, wherein the menu elements comprise the selectable filter criteria” at Fig. 2.
Claims 14-20 recite similar limitations as in claims 1-13 and are therefore rejected by the same reasons.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of US Patent No. 10,885,136. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claims 1-12 of US Patent No. 10,885,136 contain every element of claims 1-20 of the instant application, as detailed in the mapping table below, and as such anticipate claims 1-20 of the instant application.
“A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species within that genus). “ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001).
Instant Application 19/285,742
Patent No. 10,885,136
A method comprising:
accessing user profile data associated with a plurality of users;
generating a bit-set based on the user profile data;
receiving filter criteria;
filtering the bit-set based on the filter criteria to identify a subset of users;
comparing a quantity of users in the subset to a threshold; and
causing display of a notification based on the comparison.
A method comprising:
accessing a database comprising user profile data of a plurality of users, the user profile data including user attribute data;
generating a bit-set based on the user attribute data from the database, the bit-set comprising an array of binary values, the binary values based on the user attribute data;
receiving a user input that comprises a selection of a geographic region from within a map image; segmenting the geographic region into a set of geo-cells, wherein the set of geo-cells include corresponding location identifiers;
filtering the bit-set based on the location identifiers of the set of geo-cells; identifying a subset of the plurality of users based on the filtered bit-set;
performing a comparison of a value of a quantity of users among the subset of the plurality of users identified based on the filtered bit-set against a threshold value; and
causing display of a notification at the client device based on the comparison of the value of the quantity of users among the subset of the plurality of users against the threshold value, the notification including a presentation of the value of the quantity of users among the subset of the plurality of users identified based on the filtered bit-set, the presentation of the quantity of users including a linear gauge that indicates the quantity of the users among the subset of the plurality of users.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of US Patent No. 12,399,943. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-14 of US Patent No. 12,399,943 contain every element of claims 1-20 of the instant application, as detailed in the mapping table below, and as such anticipate claims 1-20 of the instant application.
“A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species within that genus). “ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001).
Instant Application 19/285,742
US Patent No. 12,399,943
A method comprising:
accessing user profile data associated with a plurality of users;
receiving filter criteria;
filtering the bit-set based on the filter criteria to identify a subset of users;
generating a bit-set based on the user profile data;
comparing a quantity of users in the subset to a threshold;
causing display of a notification based on the comparison.
1. A method comprising:
accessing a database comprising user profile data of a plurality of users, the user profile data including user attribute data; determining one or more user attributes based on the user attribute data of the user profile data; generating a graphical user interface that comprises a display of one or more menu elements that correspond with each of the one or more user attributes, the one or more menu elements comprising one or more selectable filter criteria selected from among a plurality of filter criteria based on the one or more user attributes;
receiving a selection of one or more filter criteria from among the display of the one or more selectable filter criteria, the selection including a Boolean operator; identifying a subset of the plurality of users based on a user attribute associated with the one or more filter criteria;
generating a bit-set based on the user attribute data of the user profile data; receiving a user input, the user input that defines a minimum threshold value for a quantity of users in the subset;
determining that a quantity of the subset of the plurality of users is below the threshold value received by the user input based on a comparison of a count of user identifiers in the filtered bit-set against the minimum threshold value stored in the data base; and
responsive to determining that the quantity of the subset of the plurality of users is below the threshold value,
causing display of a notification that includes a presentation of the quantity of the subset of the plurality of users, and a display of a message selected from among a plurality of messages based on the determining that the quantity is below the threshold value, the presentation of the quantity of the subset of the plurality of users comprising a linear gauge that indicates the quantity of the subset of the plurality of users.
Conclusion
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
In the case of amending the Claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHANH B PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-4116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8am to 4pm.
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, Sanjiv Shah can be reached at (571)272-4098. 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.
/KHANH B PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2166
June 5, 2026
Prosecution Insights