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
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 08/06/2025.
Claims 23-45 are pending.
Claims 1-22 are cancelled.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 08/06/2025, 09/22/2025 and 10/08/2025 has been considered (see form-1449, MPEP 609).
Drawings
The drawings filed on 08/06/2025 are accepted.
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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 23-45 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 12,511,296. Although the conflicting are not patentably distinct from each other because since the claims of the Patent No. 12,511,296 contains every element of the claims of the instant application, and as such, anticipate the claims of the instant application 19/291778. (See table below).
Instant Application claim 23
Patent No. 12,511,296 claim 1
A method executed by at least one hardware processor comprising the steps of: determining a set of profiles as potential matches for a first user based at least on a preference of the first user received from a first user device, the preference of the first user corresponding to a characteristic of each profile of the set of profiles, the set of profiles comprising a profile of a second user; presenting the set of profiles on the first user device; receiving, using an interface operably coupled with the at least one hardware processor, a positive preference from the first user for the profile of the second user; presenting a notification on the first user device, the notification requesting information about whether the first user and the second user met in-person; receiving, using the interface, a response to the notification from the first user device; determining that the first user met the second user in-person based at least in part on the response; transmitting, using the interface, a request to the first user for a first set of data about the in-person meeting between the first user and the second user; receiving, using the interface, the first set of data from the first user; determining, based at least in part on the first set of data, a score of the second user that indicates the first user's desire for a subsequent in-person meeting with the second user; in response to determining the score of the second user, updating a recommendation algorithm based on the score; and generating a recommendation of a third user for the first user using the updated recommendation algorithm.
A method executed by at least one hardware processor comprising the steps of: receiving, using an interface operably coupled with the at least one hardware processor and configured to send and receive data over a network, messages from a first user to a second user; determining, based at least in part on the messages, that the first user and the second user had an in-person meeting, wherein determining that the first user and the second user had the in-person meeting comprises: applying an algorithm to the messages to determine a probability that the first user and the second user had an in-person meeting, wherein the algorithm is trained on a set of training data that comprises historical messages between multiple pairs of users, wherein each of the historical messages is labeled with whether the in-person meeting took place between a respective pair of users or not; extracting, by applying the algorithm, a set of attributes from the messages between the first user and the second user, wherein the set of attributes comprises at least one of: a frequency of messages exchanged between the first user and the second user, a number of messages exchanged between the first user and the second user, a timing of each message sent from the first user to the second user after the first user and the second user were matched, at least one certain keyword contained within the exchanged messages, or a day of a week when certain messages were exchanged between the first user and the second user; and assigning a set of weights to the set of attributes, wherein the set of weights indicates a degree of probability that the in-person meeting has occurred between the first user and the second user; and determining that the degree of probability is greater than a threshold; transmitting, using the interface, a request to the first user for a first set of data about the in-person meeting between the first user and the second user, the first set of data being associated with a survey comprising a set of questions; receiving, using the interface, the first set of data from the first user, the first set of data comprising one or more responses associated with the set of questions; determining, based at least in part on the first set of data, a score of the second user that indicates the first user's desire for a subsequent in-person meeting with the second user, wherein determining the score comprises: assigning a respective score to one or more categories of reasons for declining or accepting the subsequent in-person meeting; analyzing the one or more responses to determine a reason provided by the first user for declining or accepting the subsequent in-person meeting; and determining that the determined reason belongs to a category to which the score was assigned; in response to determining the score of the second user: updating a recommendation algorithm based on the score; and transmitting, using the interface, a notification, based on the score, to the first user; and generating, by executing the updated recommendation algorithm, an improved recommendation of a third user to the first user.
Claims 1-10 of Patent No. 12,511,296 satisfies all the elements of claims 23-30 of the instant application, and as such, anticipates the claims of instant application.
Instant Application claim 31
Patent No. 12,511296 claim 1
An apparatus comprising: an interface configured to send and receive data over a network; and a hardware processor configured to: determine a set of profiles as potential matches for a first user based at least on a preference of the first user received from a first user device, the preference of the first user corresponding to a characteristic of each profile of the set of profiles, the set of profiles comprising a profile of a second user; present the set of profiles on the first user device; receive, using an interface operably coupled with the at least one hardware processor, a positive preference from the first user for the profile of the second user; present a notification on the first user device, the notification requesting information about whether the first user and the second user met in-person; receive, using the interface, a response to the notification from the first user device; determine that the first user met the second user in-person based at least in part on the response; transmit, using the interface, a request to the first user for a first set of data about the in-person meeting between the first user and the second user; receive, using the interface, the first set of data from the first user; determine, based at least in part on the first set of data, a score of the second user that indicates the first user's desire for a subsequent in-person meeting with the second user; in response to determining the score of the second user, update a recommendation algorithm based on the score; and generate a recommendation of a third user for the first user using the updated recommendation algorithm.
An apparatus comprising: an interface configured to send and receive data over a network; and a hardware processor operably coupled to the interface, and configured to: receive, using the interface, a message from a first user to a second user; determine, based at least in part on the message, that the first user and the second user had an in-person meeting, wherein determining that the first user and the second user had the in-person meeting comprises: applying an algorithm to the message to determine a probability that the first user and the second user had an in-person meeting; and determining that the probability is greater than a threshold; transmit, using the interface, a request to the first user for a first set of data about the in-person meeting between the first user and the second user, the first set of data being associated with a survey comprising a set of questions; receive, using the interface, the first set of data from the first user, the first set of data comprising one or more responses associated with the set of questions; determine, based at least in part on the first set of data, a score of the second user that indicates the first user's desire for a subsequent in-person meeting with the second user, wherein determining the score, the hardware processor is configured to: assign a respective score to one or more categories of reasons for declining or accepting the subsequent in-person meeting; analyze the one or more responses to determine a reason provided by the first user for declining or accepting the subsequent in-person meeting; and determine that the determined reason belongs to a category to which the score was assigned; in response to determining the score of the second user: update a recommendation algorithm based on the score; and transmit, using the interface, a notification, based on the score, to the first user; and generate, by executing the updated recommendation algorithm, an improved recommendation of a third user to the first user.
Claims 11-21 of Patent No. 12,511296 satisfies all the elements of claims 31-37 of the instant application, and as such, anticipates the claims of instant application.
Instant Application claim 38
Patent No. 12,511296 claim 1
A non-transitory computer-readable medium encoded with logic, the logic when executed by a processor, is configured to: determine a set of profiles as potential matches for a first user based at least on a preference of the first user received from a first user device, the preference of the first user corresponding to a characteristic of each profile of the set of profiles, the set of profiles comprising a profile of a second user; present the set of profiles on the first user device; receive, using an interface operably coupled with the at least one hardware processor, a positive preference from the first user for the profile of the second user; present a notification on the first user device, the notification requesting information about whether the first user and the second user met in-person; receive, using the interface, a response to the notification from the first user device; determine that the first user met the second user in-person based at least in part on the response; transmit, using the interface, a request to the first user for a first set of data about the in-person meeting between the first user and the second user; receive, using the interface, the first set of data from the first user; determine, based at least in part on the first set of data, a score of the second user that indicates the first user's desire for a subsequent in-person meeting with the second user; in response to determining the score of the second user, update a recommendation algorithm based on the score; and generate a recommendation of a third user for the first user using the updated recommendation algorithm.
A method executed by at least one hardware processor comprising the steps of: receiving, using an interface operably coupled with the at least one hardware processor and configured to send and receive data over a network, messages from a first user to a second user; determining, based at least in part on the messages, that the first user and the second user had an in-person meeting, wherein determining that the first user and the second user had the in-person meeting comprises: applying an algorithm to the messages to determine a probability that the first user and the second user had an in-person meeting, wherein the algorithm is trained on a set of training data that comprises historical messages between multiple pairs of users, wherein each of the historical messages is labeled with whether the in-person meeting took place between a respective pair of users or not; extracting, by applying the algorithm, a set of attributes from the messages between the first user and the second user, wherein the set of attributes comprises at least one of: a frequency of messages exchanged between the first user and the second user, a number of messages exchanged between the first user and the second user, a timing of each message sent from the first user to the second user after the first user and the second user were matched, at least one certain keyword contained within the exchanged messages, or a day of a week when certain messages were exchanged between the first user and the second user; and assigning a set of weights to the set of attributes, wherein the set of weights indicates a degree of probability that the in-person meeting has occurred between the first user and the second user; and determining that the degree of probability is greater than a threshold; transmitting, using the interface, a request to the first user for a first set of data about the in-person meeting between the first user and the second user, the first set of data being associated with a survey comprising a set of questions; receiving, using the interface, the first set of data from the first user, the first set of data comprising one or more responses associated with the set of questions; determining, based at least in part on the first set of data, a score of the second user that indicates the first user's desire for a subsequent in-person meeting with the second user, wherein determining the score comprises: assigning a respective score to one or more categories of reasons for declining or accepting the subsequent in-person meeting; analyzing the one or more responses to determine a reason provided by the first user for declining or accepting the subsequent in-person meeting; and determining that the determined reason belongs to a category to which the score was assigned; in response to determining the score of the second user: updating a recommendation algorithm based on the score; and transmitting, using the interface, a notification, based on the score, to the first user; and generating, by executing the updated recommendation algorithm, an improved recommendation of a third user to the first user.
Claims 1-10 of Patent No. 12,511,296 satisfies all the elements of claims 38-45 of the instant application, and as such, anticipates the claims of instant application.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their 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.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 23, 25-31, 33-38, 40-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rad et al. (US PGPUB 2014/0074824, hereinafter Rad), in view of Herbst et al. (US PGPUB 2017/0300935, hereinafter Herbst).
As per as claim 23, Rad discloses:
A method executed by at least one hardware processor comprising the steps of:
determining a set of profiles as potential matches for a first user based at least on a preference of the first user received from a first user device, the preference of the first user corresponding to a characteristic of each profile of the set of profiles, the set of profiles comprising a profile of a second user (Rad, e.g., [0010-0012], “...receiving a preference indication for a first user profile of the plurality of user profiles...determining a potential match user profile of the plurality of user profiles based on the preference indication for the first user profile. The method also comprises presenting the potential match user profile to a second user...” and see [0045]);
presenting the set of profiles on the first user device (Rad, e.g., [0010-0012], “...preference indication for a first user profile of the plurality of user profiles...”);
receiving, using an interface operably coupled with the at least one hardware processor, a positive preference from the first user for the profile of the second user (Rad, e.g., [0010-0013], “...scoring the plurality of user profiles for potential matching with the first user based on comparisons of the plurality of user profiles with the first user profile. It also comprises identifying a second user profile of the plurality of user profiles as a potential match for the first user based on the scoring...”);
receiving, using the interface, a response to the notification from the first user device (Rad, e.g., [0010-0012, and [0053], [0059], “...matching server 20 will notify Harry of Sally's preference. On Harry's display 12a, matching server 20 will cause notification 39 to appear, associating it with Jane Joe. Notification 39 will indicate to Harry that Sally has recommended Jane Los as a potential match...” and further see [0099], [0101], “...a communication session (e.g., a chat, an SMS message, an e-mail, a telephone call, a voice communication session, a video communication session). This may be done in response to a first user 14 expressing a preference for a second user 14 that has already expressed a preference for the first user...”);
receiving, using the interface, the first set of data from the first user (Rad, e.g., [0010-0012, and [0053], [0059], [0099], “...a communication session (e.g., a chat, an SMS message, an e-mail, a telephone call, a voice communication session, a video communication session)...”, further [0101], “...Harry and Sally to directly communicate with each other (e.g., through a private chat interface)...”, [0105], “...allows private communications between first and second users...”);
in response to determining the score of the second user, updating a recommendation algorithm based on the score (Rad, e.g., fig. 2, associating with texts description, [0053-0054], [0056], [0085-0086], “...preference for one or more of the entities in result list 31. Assume Sally presses recommend button 37 associated with Jane Joe. After doing so, matching server 20 will notify Harry of Sally's preference... generate a score for each entity in pool 30 based on a comparison between the list of keywords found in user's 14 profile and a similarly-generated list of keywords of each entity in pool...”); and
generating a recommendation of a third user for the first user using the updated recommendation algorithm (Rad, e.g., [0011-0012], “...identifying a second user profile of the plurality of user profiles as a potential match for the first user based on the scoring. The method further comprises identifying commonality between a third user profile of the plurality of user profiles and the second user profile. In addition, the method comprises presenting to the first user the third user profile as a potential match for the first user...”, and [0053-0054], “...pressing recommend button 37. Sally may indicate a preference for one or more of the entities in result list 31. Assume Sally presses recommend button 37 associated with Jane Joe. After doing so, matching server 20 will notify Harry of Sally's preference. On Harry's display 12a, matching server 20 will cause notification 39 to appear, associating it with Jane Joe. Notification 39 will indicate to Harry that Sally has recommended Jane Los as a potential match. Harry may find Sally's preference helpful in determining which entities he should pursue further if, for example, he believes Sally understands the type of person he is looking for...”).
Rad discloses “transmitting, using the interface and sending request form first user to second user or second user to first user” (Rad, e.g., [0010-0012, and [0053], [0059], [0099], “...a communication session (e.g., a chat, an SMS message, an e-mail, a telephone call, a voice communication session, a video communication session)...”, further [0101], “... a private chat interface...”, [0105], “...allows private communications between first and second users...”),
To make records clearer regarding to the features of “presenting a notification on the first user device, the notification requesting information about whether the first user and the second user met in-person”;
“determining that the first user met the second user in-person based at least in part on the response”;
“transmitting, using the interface, a request to the first user for a first set of data about the in-person meeting between the first user and the second user”;
determining, based at least in part on the first set of data, a score of the second user that indicates the first user's desire for a subsequent in-person meeting with the second user”.
However Herbst, in an analogous art, discloses” presenting a notification on the first user device, the notification requesting information about whether the first user and the second user met in-person” (Herbst, e.g., [0104-0105], “... ask the dater how the dater felt about the Match after meeting in person...”); and “determining that the first user met the second user in-person based at least in part on the response” (Herbst, e.g., [0104-0105], “... ask the dater how the dater felt about the Match after meeting in person...”); “transmitting, using the interface, a request to the first user for a first set of data about the in-person meeting between the first user and the second user” (Herbst, e.g., [0104-0105], “...a Friend of a dater also receives notice when a Match is issued for the dater, if the dater opts for such information to be shared with Friends... ask the dater how the dater felt about the Match after meeting in person...”); and “determining, based at least in part on the first set of data, a score of the second user that indicates the first user's desire for a subsequent in-person meeting with the second user” (Herbst, e.g., [0037-0038], “...each score is a set of statistical parameters that defines a probability distribution...how one dater will like another dater...” and [0044-0046], [0050], [0135-0136], [0142], “calculates an individual bidirectional score for each evaluation...”). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art BEFORE the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Kerbst and Rad to analyze and determine whether a match would result in the satisfaction of daters and archiving in improve finding the best match for daters (Herbst, e.g., [0003-0006]).
As per a claim 25, the combination of Kerbst and Rad disclose:
The method of claim 23, wherein: the set of profiles further comprises a second profile of a third user; and the method further comprises:
receiving, using the interface operably coupled with the at least one hardware processor (Rad, e.g., [0037], (hardware process, device, component), a second positive preference from the first user for the second profile of the third user (Rad, e.g., [0011-0012], “...a third user profile of the plurality of user profiles as a potential match for the second user. It may also include altering the score of the third user profile based on the preference indication for the first user profile...”);
transmitting messages from the first user device of the first user to a second user device of the third user ” (Rad, e.g., [0010-0012, and [0053], [0059], [0099], “...a communication session (e.g., a chat, an SMS message, an e-mail, a telephone call, a voice communication session, a video communication session)...”, further [0101], “... a private chat interface...”); and
determining, based at least on the messages, that the first user met the third user in-person, wherein determining that the first user met the third user in-person comprises determining that a message received from the first user comprises a phone number ” (Rad, e.g., [0010-0012, and [0053], [0059], [0099], “...a communication session (e.g., a chat, an SMS message, an e-mail, a telephone call, a voice communication session, a video communication session)...”, further [0101], “... a private chat interface...”) and (Herbst, e.g., [0104-0105], “...a Friend of a dater also receives notice when a Match is issued for the dater, if the dater opts for such information to be shared with Friends... ask the dater how the dater felt about the Match after meeting in person...”).
As per as claim 26, the combination of Kerbst and Rad disclose:
The method of claim 23, wherein: the set of profiles further comprises a second profile of a third user; and the method further comprises:
receiving, using the interface operably coupled with the at least one hardware processor (Rad, e.g., [0037], (hardware process, device, component), a second positive preference from the first user for the second profile of the third user (Rad, e.g., [0012-0013], and [claim 27], “...presenting a second potential match and a third potential match to the first user, the set of potential matches comprising the second potential match and the third potential match; determining an expression of approval from the first user regarding the second potential match by detecting a first swiping gesture associated with a first direction; and determining an expression of disapproval from the first user regarding the third potential match...”);
determining that the first user met the third user in-person, wherein determining that the first user met the third user in-person comprises: receiving location information from the first user indicating a location of the first user at a first time (Rad, e.g., [0010-0012, and [0053], [0059], [0099], “...a communication session (e.g., a chat, an SMS message, an e-mail, a telephone call, a voice communication session, a video communication session)...” (the examiner asserts when user making a telephone call, or video communication which they can indicate where they should first meet), (Herbst, e.g., [0095], (user location), [0105], “...ask the dater how the dater felt about the Match after meeting in person...”);
receiving location information from the third user indicating a location of the third user at a second time (Rad, e.g., [0010-0012, and [0053], [0059], [0099], “...a communication session (e.g., a chat, an SMS message, an e-mail, a telephone call, a voice communication session, a video communication session)...” (the examiner asserts when user making a telephone call, or video communication which they can indicate where they should first meet first time, second time, third time and so on), (Herbst, e.g., [0095], (user location), [0105], “...ask the dater how the dater felt about the Match after meeting in person...”);
determining that the location of the first user at the first time is within a first tolerance of the location of the third user at the second time (Rad, e.g., [0010-0012, and [0053], [0059], “...matching server 20 will notify Harry of Sally's preference. On Harry's display 12a, matching server 20 will cause notification 39 to appear, associating it with Jane Joe. Notification 39 will indicate to Harry that Sally has recommended Jane Los as a potential match...” and [0099], “...a communication session (e.g., a chat, an SMS message, an e-mail, a telephone call, a voice communication session, a video communication session). This may be done in response to a first user 14 expressing a preference for a second user 14 that has already expressed a preference for the first user...”, further [0101], “...Matching server 20 then enables Harry and Sally to directly communicate with each other (e.g., through a private chat interface)...”, [0105], “...allows private communications between first and second users...”), (the examiner asserts when user making a telephone call, or video communication which they can indicate where they should first meet first time, second time, third time and so on), (Herbst, e.g., [0095], (user location), [0105], “...ask the dater how the dater felt about the Match after meeting in person...”); and
determining that the first time is within a second tolerance of the second time (Rad, e.g., [0010-0012, and [0053], [0059], [0099], “...a communication session (e.g., a chat, an SMS message, an e-mail, a telephone call, a voice communication session, a video communication session)...” (the examiner asserts during the communication, user can decide if they should meet second time or third time), (Herbst, e.g., [0095], (user location), [0105], “...ask the dater how the dater felt about the Match after meeting in person...”).
As per as claim 27, the combination of Kerbst and Rad disclose:
The method of claim 23, wherein:
the first set of data is associated with a survey comprising a set of questions (Rad, e.g., [0038-0045]);
the first set of data comprises one or more responses associated with the set of questions (Rad, e.g., [0038-0045]); and
determining the score comprises: assigning a respective score to one or more categories of reasons for declining or accepting the subsequent in-person meeting (Rad, e.g., [0032-0034] and [0038-0045]);
analyzing the one or more responses to determine a reason provided by the first user for declining or accepting the subsequent in-person meeting (Rad, e.g., [0038-0046], “...); and
determining that the determined reason belongs to a category to which the score was assigned (Rad, e.g., [0045-0046], “...matching server 20 will generate a commonality score for each of these comparisons and compare these scores to a preset threshold. If the commonality score is lower than the threshold, that profile will not be added to pool 30. However, if the commonality score is higher than the threshold, matching server 20 will add this profile to pool 30. As an example, further assume that the seed, Jane Doe, is being compared to another entity, Susan Smith. Based on the fact that both Susan and Jane have three users (Tom, Dick, and Harry) who have expressed a positive preference for their profiles, matching server 20 generates a commonality score of 100 for the comparison. In contrast, matching server 20 generated a commonality score of 50 for the comparison between the seed (Jane Doe) and yet another entity, Lucy Goosey. This was because only one user (Bob) had indicated a positive preference toward both Lucy and Jane. Continuing the example, matching server 20 is using a commonality threshold score of 70, which results in including Susan's profile (whose commonality score was greater than the threshold score) in pool 30 and excluding Lucy's (whose commonality score was less than the threshold score)...”).
As per as claim 28, the combination of Kerbst and Rad disclose:
The method of claim 23, wherein: the set of profiles further comprises a second profile of a third user; and the method further comprises:
receiving, using the interface operably coupled with the at least one hardware processor (Rad, e.g., [0037], (hardware process, device, component), a second positive preference from the first user for the second profile of the third user (Rad, e.g., [0012-0013], and [claim 27], “...presenting a second potential match and a third potential match to the first user, the set of potential matches comprising the second potential match and the third potential match; determining an expression of approval from the first user regarding the second potential match by detecting a first swiping gesture associated with a first direction; and determining an expression of disapproval from the first user regarding the third potential match...”);
transmitting messages from the first user device of the first user to a second user device of the third user (Rad, e.g., [0010-0012, and [0053], [0059], [0099], “...a communication session (e.g., a chat, an SMS message, an e-mail, a telephone call, a voice communication session, a video communication session)...”, further [0101], “... a private chat interface...”); and
determining that the first user met the third user in-person, wherein determining that the first user met the third user in-person comprises receiving at least one of an indication from the first user that the first user and the third user had the in-person meeting and an indication from the third user that the first user and the third user had the in-person meeting (Herbst, e.g., [0037-0038], “...each score is a set of statistical parameters that defines a probability distribution...how one dater will like another dater...” and [0044-0046], [0050], [0135-0136], [0142], “calculates an individual bidirectional score for each evaluation...”) and (Rad, e.g., [0038-0046], “...).
As per as claim 29, the combination of Kerbst and Rad disclose:
The method of claim 23, wherein: the set of profiles further comprises a second profile of a third user; and the method further comprises: receiving, using the interface operably coupled with the at least one hardware processor (Rad, e.g., [0037], (hardware process, device, component), a second positive preference from the first user for the second profile of the third user;
transmitting messages from the first user device of the first user to a second user device of the third user (Rad, e.g., [0010-0012, and [0053], [0059], [0099], “...a communication session (e.g., a chat, an SMS message, an e-mail, a telephone call, a voice communication session, a video communication session)...”, further [0101], “... a private chat interface...”); and
determining, based at least on the messages, that the first user met the third user in-person, wherein determining that the first user met the third user in-person comprises locating at least one keyword of a set of keywords in a message received from the first user, the set of keywords comprising keywords indicating that the first user and the third user are planning to meet (Herbst, e.g., [0037-0038], “...each score is a set of statistical parameters that defines a probability distribution...how one dater will like another dater...” and [0044-0046], [0050], [0135-0136], [0142], “calculates an individual bidirectional score for each evaluation...”) and (Rad, e.g., [0038-0046], “...).
As per as claim 30, the combination of Kerbst and Rad disclose:
The method of claim 23, wherein: the notification is presented on an application interface (Rad, e.g., [0010-0012, and [0053], [0059], [0099], “...a communication session (e.g., a chat, an SMS message, an e-mail, a telephone call, a voice communication session, a video communication session)...”, further [0101], “... a private chat interface...”); and
receiving the response to the notification from the first user device comprises detecting a gesture with respect to the application on a screen of the first user device (Rad, e.g., [0010-0012, and [0053], [0059], [0099], “...a communication session (e.g., a chat, an SMS message, an e-mail, a telephone call, a voice communication session, a video communication session)...”, further [0101], “... a private chat interface...”).
Claims 31, 33-37 are essentially the same as claims 23, 25-30 except that they set forth the claimed invention as an apparatus rather a method, respectively and correspondingly, therefore is rejected under the same reasons set forth in rejections of claims 23, 25-30.
Claims 38, 40-45 are essentially the same as claims 23, 25-30 except that they set forth the claimed invention as a non-transitory computer readable medium rather a method, respectively and correspondingly, therefore is rejected under the same reasons set forth in rejections of claims 23, 25-30.
Allowable Subject Matter
The prior art does not teach “the set of profiles further comprises a second profile of a third user; and the method further comprises: receiving, using the interface operably coupled with the at least one hardware processor, a second positive preference from the first user for the second profile of the third user; transmitting messages from the first user device of the first user to a second user device of the third user; and determining, based at least on the messages, that the first user met the third user in-person, wherein determining that the first user met the third user in-person further comprises: applying an algorithm to the messages exchanged between the first user and the third user to determine a probability that the first user and the third user had an in-person meeting, wherein the algorithm is trained on a set of training data that comprises historical messages between multiple pairs of users, wherein each of the historical messages is labeled with whether the in-person meeting took place between a respective pair of users or not; extracting, by applying the algorithm, a set of attributes from the messages between the first user and the third user, wherein the set of attributes comprises at least one of: a frequency of messages exchanged between the first user and the third user, a number of messages exchanged between the first user and the third user, a timing of each message sent from the first user to the third user after the first user and the third user were matched, at least one keyword contained within the exchanged messages, or a day of a week when certain messages were exchanged between the first user and the third user; and assigning a set of weights to the set of attributes, wherein the set of weights indicates a degree of probability that the in-person meeting has occurred between the first user and the third user; and determining that the degree of probability is greater than a threshold.” (Claim 24), (Claim 32) and (Claim 39). Per the instant office action, claims 24, 32, and 39 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Additional Art Considered
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the Applicants’ disclosure.
The following patents and papers are cited to further show the state of the art at the time of Applicants’ invention with respect to recommending users based on ratings of offline experiences which provide that user with dating tips to help improve his/her dating skills and if the match proved unsuccessful because of inaccurate profile information submitted by one of the users, the system could assist the user in correcting this inaccurate information, also if the match proved unsuccessful because the users simply were not compatible with one another, the system could integrate this additional information into the recommendation algorithm to increase the likelihood that future recommendations lead to both successful matches and successful in-person relationships.
a. Schneider et al. (US PGPUB 2016/0212230, hereafter Schneider); “Contextual Connection Invitations” discloses “ provide information in an invitation from a first to connect with a second user that identifies a context regarding how the first user found the second user and information identifying a second user that a first user has selected to send an invitation to connect with at the first network source, a context component configured to determine a context regarding selection of the second user by the first user, including where the first user found the information identifying the second user, and a generation component configured to generate an invitation that invites the second user to connect with the first user at the first network source”.
Schneider also teaches user profile (user attributes : images, name, age email, phone number etc. ).
Schneider further teaches online dating, exchange messages, chat [0034-0035], determine score [0075], meeting schedule [0075-0076].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUAN A PHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-3173. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:45 AM - 6:30 PM.
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, Tony Mahmoudi can be reached on 571-272-4078. 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.
/TUAN A PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163
Prosecution Insights