Patent Application 18310118 - DIGITAL SOCIAL NETWORKING FRAMEWORK - Rejection

Patent Application 18310118 - DIGITAL SOCIAL NETWORKING FRAMEWORK

Title: DIGITAL SOCIAL NETWORKING FRAMEWORK

Application Information

• Invention Title: DIGITAL SOCIAL NETWORKING FRAMEWORK
• Application Number: 18310118
• Submission Date: 2025-05-20T00:00:00.000Z
• Effective Filing Date: 2023-05-01T00:00:00.000Z
• Filing Date: 2023-05-01T00:00:00.000Z
• National Class: 715
• National Sub-Class: 744000
• Examiner Employee Number: 87933
• Art Unit: 2118
• Tech Center: 2100

Rejection Summary

• 102 Rejections: 0
• 103 Rejections: 5

Cited Patents

The following patents were cited in the rejection:

• US 0065609🔗
• US 0158457🔗
• US 0234336🔗
• US 0246790🔗
• US 0125647🔗
• US 0047070🔗

Office Action Text

    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 .

Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.114
	A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office Action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/01/2025 has been entered.

Applicant’s Response
In Applicant’s response dated 04/21/2025, Applicant amended Claims 1, 12 and 20; cancelled Claims 2 and 13; added Claim 23 and argued against all rejections previously set forth in the Office Action dated 02/24/2025.
In light of applicant’s amendments and remarks, the previously set forth objection to the title is withdrawn.
In light of applicant’s amendments and remarks, the previously set forth rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is withdrawn.


Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 4 – 12 and 15 – 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.

Examiner Note
 	The Examiner cites particular columns, line numbers and/or paragraph numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the Applicant(s). 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.

Claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 15, 17, 18 and 20 – 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finder (US 2019/0065609) (hereinafter, Finder) in view of Stearns (US 8,694,531) (hereinafter, Stearns), in further view of Cowdrey et al. (US 2016/0246790) (hereinafter, Cowdrey) and n further view of Mintz (US 2020/0125647) (hereinafter, Mintz).

Regarding Claim 1, Finder teaches a computer-implemented method (See Finder’s Abstract) comprising: 
providing a selectable dashboard element within an interface of a dating application configured for a user of the dating application (Finder in par 0288 and Fig. 16 – 24, teaches that the ODS may enable a DB to monitor the progress of any one its buddy/MEM-CAND (e.g., buddy-contact) user interactions on a main dashboard of the DB (e.g., as shown by one or more of screens 1700-2400 of FIGS. 17-24);
receiving user input selecting the dashboard element (Finder in par 0026, teaches that the ODS may allow for approval of both the MEM user as buddy (BDM) and the identified DB user (e.g., two-sided acceptance) before enabling each user to access a dashboard that can facilitate direct interaction/communication between the MEM user as buddy (BDM) and the DB user in order to equip the DB user with the most information possible to enable the most productive search for one or more candidate painters for the MEM user. Finder in par 0291 and Fig. 18, further teaches that a DBE may be enabled by the ODS to monitor the DBE's interactions with its buddies/MEM users that the DBE is assigned to help (e.g., from a main dashboard under a buddies tab, which may be similar to the buddies tab of FIGS. 17-24), such that the buddies the DBE has acted as a datebuddy for may be listed (e.g., most recent first));
Finder in par 0217, teaches that metrics may be tracked, which may be visible to any particular role or not, including such trackable events as rankings, which may be based on information which may include number or percentage of matches accepted, number of CAND offered, and other trackable events which may include duration of average DB event per match, or total time participating in DB role. 
However, Finder does not specifically disclose in response to receiving the user input, presenting a digital dating-analytics dashboard with a common interest section that provides, for a particular interest of the user, a percentage of the user’s dating matches that share the particular interest.
Stearns teaches a matching engine that compares the media records associated with different people and determines the similarities between the media libraries of the different people (See Stearns’ Abstract). Stearns in Col. 1 lines 27 – 37, further teaches that professional matchmakers typically interview new clients to gather information that the matchmaker deems useful in the matchmaking process. The client may also specify the characteristics he or she desires in a mate. The professional matchmaker then searches his or her files to identify suitable matching clients to introduce to each other.
Stearns in Col. 13. line 59 – Col. 14 line 3, further teaches that the result presentation engine 424 may be configured to present one or more category scores in addition to or instead of presenting a total score. Specifically, with reference to FIG. 9, the homepage 900 may include a command bar 922 having a plurality of commands, such as a Home command 924, a Matches command 926, a Friends command 928, a Message Box command 930 and a Conversations command 932. In response to a user, e.g., the logged in member, selecting the Matches command 926, e.g., with the mouse 324, the result presentation engine 424 may generate and present a Matches webpage.
Stearns in Col. 14 lines 4 - 35 and Fig. 10, further teaches a matches webpage 1000 generated by the result presentation engine 424 for presentation to a user. The Matches webpage 1000 provides detailed information regarding some or all of the members that have been matched to the logged in member. In particular, the matches table 1002 may have a plurality of rows 1004a-d, and each row may correspond to a member that has been matched to the logged in member. Matches table 1002 may also have a plurality of columns, such as a Member name column 1006, a Genre Score column 1008, an Artist Score column 1010, an Album Score column 1012, a Title Score column 1014, a Total Match Score column 1016, and a Friend Status column 1018. The cell corresponding to the Genre Score column 1008 contains the matching genre score, e.g., 95, generated by the matching/scoring engine 418 for the logged in member and the member represented at row 1004a, e.g., `skip1`. Similarly, the cells corresponding to the Artist Score column 1010, the Album Score column 1012, and the Title Score column 1014 contain the matching artist score, the matching album score and the matching title score, which in this example are all 95. The cell corresponding to the Total Match Score column 1016 contains the total match score, e.g., 951, for the logged in member and the member, e.g., `skip1`, corresponding to the respective row, e.g., row 1004a. 
Accordingly, Stearns as shown in figure 10, teaches the presentation of a dashboard that is presented to the user in response to the user selecting Matches from the command bar 922. The matches dashboard include metrics associated with the user matching common interest or tastes in media. Each category including a score associated with the matching of the particular interest. As indicated above finders teaches that the matching can be provided as a number or percentage. 
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize the teachings as in Stearns with the teachings as in Finder to provide Finder’s dashboard with matching results of the user’s dating matches that share the particular interest as disclosed in Stearns. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a tool that is configured to provide additional information, such as detailed or specific media matching information between the user and another member (See Stearns’ Col. 14 lines 50 – 53).
However, Finder in view of Sterns does not specifically disclose wherein the percentage corresponds to a number of additional users, who accepted the user as a dating match and whom were accepted by the user as a dating match, that share the particular interest relative to a number of additional users, who accepted the user as a dating match and whom were accepted by the user as a dating match, that do not share the particular interest.
Finder in par 0220, teaches Screen 700 may enable the buddy/MEM user to either accept or decline this DB user being suggested by the ODS (e.g., through interaction with the checkmark (accept) or x-box (decline)).
As shown in figure 10 of Sterns, the matching scores correspond to one to one comparison including at least to members that are friends and two that are not friends. Sterns in Col. 17 lines 40 – 43, further teaches that the contacted member may also obtain his or her score with the member who is making the contact, Depending on the score, the contacted member may choose to accept or decline the contact. Accordingly, Stern is missing a calculation of an overall or average among the user matches that that shared the corresponding interest. 
Cowdrey teaches that user profiles associated with a social networking application may be updated and compared to identify potential user interests and groups for users to connect and meet via their user devices (See Cowdrey’s Abstract).
Cowdrey in par 0028 – 0031, further teaches that behavioral tracking is performed to help users understand their current connections better and to connect with people who share their common interests. The application will proactively suggest threshold based statistics (percentage relevancy) to share with the user's connections. For example, the application can tell what percentage of a user's connections are dog lovers versus cat lovers or conservatives versus progressives.
Accordingly, Cowdrey teaches a method that amount the user’s connections, the method can calculate a percentage amount all user share the same interest such as “dog lovers” or “cat lovers”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize the teachings as in Cowdrey with the teachings as in Finders and Sterns, to calculate the common interest percentage amount the user dating matches of Finder and Stems as disclosed with the connections of Cowdrey. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide data to better understand current connections (See Cowdrey’s par 0028).
However, Finder in view of Stearns and in further view of Cowdrey does not specifically disclose generating a short-form video, configured for a social media consumption channel, based on the digital dating-analytics dashboard; and posting the short-form video on the social media consumption channel.
Mintz teaches generating a short-form video, configured for a social media consumption channel, based on the digital dating-analytics dashboard (Mintz in par 0003, teaches that dating sites rely on users to build their own profiles by uploading or linking photographs and interests, by setting preferences, and sometimes by creating and answering questions. Some sites additionally require a link to a user's social media account(s). Analytics used to obtain the user's matches rely mostly on interests and preferences of the user. Mintz in par 0041 – 0046, further teaches a video journal service that capture data from the recorded videos and uses cognitive analysis of the user within the video recordings, such as emotions being expressed and education that can be determined through linguistic analysis. The video journal service program creates a first video journal of compiled video clips cut or extracted from all of the user video recordings showing the user exhibiting a first emotion and the first video journal is stored in the repository associated with the user’s profile. 
Thus, Mintz is generating a video that is based on information associated with the user. Furthermore, the profile in Mintz include information associated with emotions, education and other data. The dashboard in Finders include education information and other data. Therefore, Mintz in view of Finder, in further view Stearns and in further view Cowdrey teaches or suggests generating a short-form video, configured for a social media consumption channel, based on the digital dating-analytics dashboard as claimed.
posting the short-form video to the social media consumption channel (Mintz in par 0068, further teaches that the video journal can be shared with other users, such as medical professionals, caregivers or family members).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize the teachings as in Mintz with the teachings as in Finder, Stearns and Cowdrey to modify the method for an online social networking service with human matchmaking disclosed by Finder to include the concept of determining biorhythms through video journal services taught by Mintz. The motivation for doing so would have been to maximize the potential of video to augment the service (See Mintz’s par 0006).

Regarding Claim 4, Finder in view of Stearns, in further view of Cowdrey and in further view of Mintz teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 1. Finder further teaches:
further comprising: 
identifying locations associated with a plurality of the user's dating matches (Finder in par 0189, teaches that that the ODS may be configured for an initial geographical input that may be based on zip code, but the ODS may allow input for a range of zip codes or variable distance from a zip code or from multiple zip codes (e.g., if user has multiple locations that he is interested in or visits often)); and
providing the locations within a matches-locations summary section of the digital dating-analytics dashboard (Finder in par 0188 – 0189, teaches that the ODS may leverage certain or all data of a MEM user's profile and certain or all data of a DB user's profile with any suitable MEM-DB linking algorithm that may effectively match a MEM user with a suitable DB while also reducing to the degree possible the possibility of a negative interaction between the MEM user and a suggested DB user. Such information may include, but is not limited to, the following: A) Geographical—The ODS may be configured for an initial geographical input that may be based on zip code, but the ODS may allow input for a range of zip codes or variable distance from a zip code or from multiple zip codes (e.g., if user has multiple locations that he is interested in or visits often). The ODS may utilize a zone larger than the input range, and may consider a proportional relationship to the range input. The ODS may also be influenced by the membership availability from a geographical perspective).

Regarding Claim 6, Finder in view of Stearns, in further view of Cowdrey and in further view of Mintz teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 1. Finder further teaches:
further comprising: 
identifying a user dating-engagement metric corresponding to the user; and providing the user dating-engagement metric within the digital dating-analytics dashboard (Finder in par 0188 - 0212, further teaches that the ODS may leverage certain or all data of a MEM user's profile and certain or all data of a DB user's profile with any suitable MEM-DB linking algorithm that may effectively match a MEM user with a suitable DB while also reducing to the degree possible the possibility of a negative interaction between the MEM user and a suggested DB user. Such information may include, DB success history (e.g., ranking, stats, etc.)—by maintaining metrics that may include a number of DB-MEM interactions, number of CANDs offered, number of matches accepted, number of matches resulting in meetings, number of matches resulting in any level of engagement, ratios derived from the same, and the like, may improve various functionalities of the ODS). As shown in figure 19, the tally of “Accepted Matches” is displayed.

Regarding Claim 7, Finder in view of Stearns, in further view of Cowdrey and in further view of Mintz teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 6. Finder further teaches:
wherein the user dating-engagement metric comprises at least one of: 
a number of messages sent by the user via the dating application; a number of dating matches reviewed by the user via the dating application; a number of dating matches accepted by the user via the dating application; or a number of dating matches rejected by the user via the dating application (Finder in par 0188 – 0212, further teaches that the ODS may leverage certain or all data of a MEM user's profile and certain or all data of a DB user's profile with any suitable MEM-DB linking algorithm that may effectively match a MEM user with a suitable DB while also reducing to the degree possible the possibility of a negative interaction between the MEM user and a suggested DB user. Such information may include DB success history (e.g., ranking, stats, etc.)—by maintaining metrics that may include a number of DB-MEM interactions, number of CANDs offered, number of matches accepted, number of matches resulting in meetings, number of matches resulting in any level of engagement, ratios derived from the same, and the like, may improve various functionalities of the ODS).

Regarding Claim 9, Finder in view of Stearns, in further view of Cowdrey and in further view of Mintz teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 1. Sterns further teaches:
wherein the particular interest comprises an interest extracted from a list of interests within a full dating profile of the user (Stearns in Col. 1 lines 27 – 37, further teaches that professional matchmakers typically interview new clients to gather information that the matchmaker deems useful in the matchmaking process. The client may also specify the characteristics he or she desires in a mate. The professional matchmaker then searches his or her files to identify suitable matching clients to introduce to each other. Stearns in Col. 13. line 59 – Col. 14 line 3, further teaches that the result presentation engine 424 may be configured to present one or more category scores in addition to or instead of presenting a total score. Specifically, with reference to FIG. 9, the homepage 900 may include a command bar 922 having a plurality of commands, such as a Home command 924, a Matches command 926, a Friends command 928, a Message Box command 930 and a Conversations command 932. In response to a user, e.g., the logged in member, selecting the Matches command 926, e.g., with the mouse 324, the result presentation engine 424 may generate and present a Matches webpage. Stearns in Col. 14 lines 4 - 35 and Fig. 10, further teaches a matches webpage 1000 generated by the result presentation engine 424 for presentation to a user. The Matches webpage 1000 provides detailed information regarding some or all of the members that have been matched to the logged in member).

Regarding Claim 10, Finder in view of Stearns, in further view of Cowdrey and in further view of Mintz teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 1. Finder further teaches:
wherein the interface comprises an interface of a digital matchmaker center, provided within the dating application, configured for the user and one or more additional users designated by the user with a matchmaker designation (Finder in par 0220, teaches that after a MEM user as buddy, or a BDE, has completed a profile, the ODS may identify a matchmaking datebuddy (e.g., a DBM user or a DBE user) for that partner-seeking user. As shown by screen 700 of FIG. 7, an ODS may indicate to the buddy/MEM user that a new DB user has been suggested as a new datebuddy to that buddy/MEM user).

Regarding Claim 12, this Claim merely recites a system comprising at least one physical processor; and physical memory comprising computer – executable instructions that, when executed by the physical processor, cause the physical processor to execute steps as similarly recited in Claim 1. Accordingly, Finder in view of Stearns, in further view of Cowdrey and in further view of Mintz discloses/teaches every limitation of Claim 12, as indicated above in the rejection of Claim 1. 

Regarding Claim 15, this Claim merely recites a system comprising at least one physical processor; and physical memory comprising computer – executable instructions that, when executed by the physical processor, cause the physical processor to execute steps as similarly recited in Claim 4. Accordingly, Finder in view of Stearns, in further view of Cowdrey and in further view of Mintz discloses/teaches every limitation of Claim 15, as indicated above in the rejection of Claim 4. 

Regarding Claim 17, this Claim merely recites a system comprising at least one physical processor; and physical memory comprising computer – executable instructions that, when executed by the physical processor, cause the physical processor to execute steps as similarly recited in Claim 6. Accordingly, Finder in view of Stearns, in further view of Cowdrey and in further view of Mintz discloses/teaches every limitation of Claim 17, as indicated above in the rejection of Claim 6. 

Regarding Claim 18, this Claim merely recites a system comprising at least one physical processor; and physical memory comprising computer – executable instructions that, when executed by the physical processor, cause the physical processor to execute steps as similarly recited in Claim 7. Accordingly, Finder in view of Stearns, in further view of Cowdrey and in further view of Mintz discloses/teaches every limitation of Claim 18, as indicated above in the rejection of Claim 7.

Regarding Claim 20, this Claim merely recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising one or more computer-readable instructions that, when executed by at least one processor of a computing device, cause the computing device to execute steps as similarly recited in Claim 1. Accordingly, Finder in view of Stearns, in further view of Cowdrey and in further view of Mintz discloses/teaches every limitation of Claim 20, as indicated above in the rejection of Claim 1.

Regarding Claim 21, Finder in view of Stearns, in further view of Cowdrey and in further view of Mintz teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 1. Finder further teaches:
further comprising: 
identifying ages associated with a plurality of the user's dating matches; and providing the ages within a matches-ages summary section of the digital dating-analytics dashboard (Finder in par 0188 – 0192, teaches that the ODS may leverage certain or all data of a MEM user's profile and certain or all data of a DB user's profile with any suitable MEM-DB linking algorithm that may effectively match a MEM user with a suitable DB while also reducing to the degree possible the possibility of a negative interaction between the MEM user and a suggested DB user. Such information may include, Age - this may utilize a sliding scale methodology. The ODS may use an X year sliding scale whose midpoint may be calculated from the basis of the range listed under partner preferences. As just one example, the ODS may start with the range input, calculate it's midpoint, calculate the delta between that midpoint and age of member, cap the delta at some number Y, multiply that midpoint after it is calculated by some variable Z). As shown in figure 19, both buddies displayed include the age which is in a selected range.

Regarding Claim 22, Finder in view of Stearns, in further view of Cowdrey and in further view of Mintz teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 21. Finder further teaches:
wherein the matches- ages summary section comprises at least one of: 
an age range of all of the user's dating matches; or 
for each sub-range within a plurality of sub-ranges with the age range of all of the user's dating matches, a percentage of the user's dating matches whose age falls within the sub-range (Finder in par 0217, further teaches that if a user profile creation phase of the ODS may allow for user specific information representative of the user's preferences for the choice of an assigned DB to extend beyond the preferences chosen for a partner's preference (e.g., if user responses to one or more examples of the above DB preference list may extend beyond user responses to one or more examples of the above partner preference list), then those preferences may be leveraged by the ODS algorithm for selecting a DB for a user. The novel aspects of this process may include using a matching process for a matchmaking role rather than for a potential partner role, the increased likelihood in probability of the ODS facilitating the finding of a partner by finding their friend (taking advantage of the increased probability of shared or similar characteristics among friends relative to the population at large (random sample matched for age range and sex). Finder in par 0334, further teaches that the individual may be a demographically matched age range considered person who may or may not be seeking a partner, but whose demographic consideration when matched with either Buddy family or Buddy individual partner preferences may increase the likelihood of compatibility of the eventually offered Candidate family/individual unit with the Buddy family or Buddy individual).

Claims 5 and 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finder in view of Stearns, in further view of Cowdrey, in further view of Mintz and in further view of Dworkin et al. (US 2020/0234336) (hereinafter, Dworkin).

Regarding Claim 5,  Finder in view of Stearns, in further view of Cowdrey and in further view of Mintz teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 4. Cowdrey further teaches:
Cowdrey in par 0030, teaches the application can tell what percentage of a user's connections are dog lovers versus cat lovers or conservatives versus progressives. There can be thousands of other data points to share.
However, Cowdrey does not specifically disclose that the data points include locations. Accordingly, Finder in view of Stearns, in further view of Cowdrey and in further view of Mintz does not specifically disclose wherein the matches-locations summary section comprises, for each location within a plurality of locations, a percentage of user’s dating matches associated with the location.
  Dworkin teaches a server that transmits information to a plurality of subscribers (See Dworkin’s Abstract). Dworkin in par 0087 – 0089 and Fig. 3, teaches that the user presses the “list Mode” button on the home screen. The display show a list of bars, the number of total subscribers and friends of the given subscriber at that bar and the distance from the subscriber’s current location. In the example given in FIG. 3, the closest bar is Kildars Irish Pub, and there are 37 subscribers currently at that bar, of which 10 are the subscriber's “friends”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize the teachings as in Dworkin with the teachings as in Finders, Sterns, Cowdrey and Mintz, to provide the percentage of user matches associated with a particular location as disclosed in Dworkin. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide data to better understand user matches such as anticipating user’s match location (See Dworkin’s par 0049 and Fig. 21).

Regarding Claim 16, this Claim merely recites a system comprising at least one physical processor; and physical memory comprising computer – executable instructions that, when executed by the physical processor, cause the physical processor to execute steps as similarly recited in Claim 5. Accordingly, Finder in view of Stearns, in further view of Cowdrey, in further view of Mintz and in further view of Dworkin discloses/teaches every limitation of Claim 16, as indicated above in the rejection of Claim 5. 

Claims 8, 19 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finder in view of Stearns, in further view of Cowdrey, in further view of  Mintz and in further view of Koenig (US 2018/0047070) (hereinafter Koenig).

Regarding Claim 8, Finder in view of Stearns, in further view of Cowdrey and in further view of Mintz teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 1. 
However, Finder in view of Stearns, in further view of Cowdrey and in further view of Mintz does not specifically disclose further comprising providing self-help content within the digital dating-analytics dashboard.
Koenig in par 0013, teaches that the suggestions are also based upon algorithms that analyze and learn from available rating history data to make predictions on potential matches, utilizing rating trends of that user (i.e. the prior ratings entered by that user during their usage of the system while viewing other videos) as well as the rating trends of other users who have rated the same videos in a similar manner (herein referred to as Similar Rating Groups, or SRGs). These suggestions could also be in the form of helpful hints, tips, and tutorials to assist the user optimize their experience with the system, for example improving the first impression they are making to other users.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize the teachings as in Koenig with the teachings as in Finder,  Stearns, Cowdrey and Mintz to modify a method for an online social networking service with human matchmaking  disclosed by Finder to include the concept of providing a profiled video preview and recommendation portal taught by Koenig. The motivation for doing so would have been to effectively provide recommendations based upon multiple users’ profiled data, for example shared interests and hobbies (See Koenig’s par 0009).

Regarding Claim 19, this Claim merely recites a system comprising at least one physical processor; and physical memory comprising computer – executable instructions that, when executed by the physical processor, cause the physical processor to execute steps as similarly recited in Claim 8. Accordingly, Finder in view of Stearns, in further view of Cowdrey, in view of Mintz and in further view of Koenig discloses/teaches every limitation of Claim 19, as indicated above in the rejection of Claim 8.

Regarding Claim 23, Finder in view of Stearns, in further view of Cowdrey and in further view of Mintz teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 1. Stearns further teaches:
Stearns in figure 10, teaches the presentation of a dashboard that is presented to the user in response to the user selecting Matches from the command bar 922. The matches dashboard include metrics associated with the user matching common interest or tastes in media. Each category including a score associated with the matching of the particular interest.
Mintz in par 0041 – 0046, further teaches a video journal service that capture data from the recorded videos and uses cognitive analysis of the user within the video recordings. The video journal service program creates a first video journal of compiled video clips cut or extracted from all of the user video recordings showing the user exhibiting a first emotion and the first video journal is stored in the repository associated with the user’s profile. 
However, Finder in view of Stearns, in further view of Cowdrey and in further view of Mintz does not specifically disclose wherein the short-form video is further based on the common interest section of the digital dating-analytics dashboard.
Koenig in par 0029, teaches generating a profile for an individual user, based upon a plurality of personalized data, creating a video to promote an individual, good, and/or service. Koenig in par 0037, further teaches that the users “tag” their profiles and/or videos by entering descriptive terms about the item being promoted in the video. These are then used as reference terms, such that when other users enter those terms in their preferred search criteria, that video would then be matched (for example, in the dining app, any video labeled “Thai” would appear to a user who enters “Thai” as a search preference). These profiles and videos are displayed to any user of the system who enters a certain set of matching criteria.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize the teachings as in Koenig with the teachings as in Finder,  Stearns, Cowdrey and Mintz to modify a method for an online social networking service with human matchmaking disclosed by Finder to include the concept of providing a profiled video preview and recommendation portal taught by Koenig. The motivation for doing so would have been to effectively provide recommendations based upon multiple users’ profiled data, for example shared interests and hobbies (See Koenig’s par 0009).

Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finder in view of Stearns, in further view of Cowdrey, in further view of Mintz and in further view of Springstroh (US 2021/0158457) (hereinafter, Springstroh).

Regarding Claim 11, Finder in view of Stearns, in further view of Cowdrey and in further view of Mintz teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 1. 
Finder in par 0026, teaches that the ODS may also enable a MEM user to go to at least three additional locations, including two dashboards that may metric various awards that may have been granted to that user for their efforts up to that point, such as discounts (“BuddyBucks”) and charity contributions (“CharityBucks”), and a third location may be a social community page, which may allow the MEM user to monitor and share in a social network dashboard all the friends that they have made through previous ODS interactions e.g., DBs, candidates, etc.).
However, Finder in view of Stearns, in further view of Cowdrey and in further view of Mintz does not specifically disclose further comprising enabling the user to create a shareable version of the user's dating profile configured to be shared to a social media platform and reshared by other users of the social media platform.
Springstroh in par 0038, teaches that a dating profile may include any suitable information that a participant in the dating service of the social network (e.g., user 216) may wish to share with other participants in the dating service and/or may wish to keep private from users of the social networking system who are not participating in the dating service.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the teachings as in Springstroh with the teachings as in Finder, Stearns, Mintz and Cowdrey to modify the method for an online social networking service with human matchmaking disclosed by Finder to include the concept of generating a dating profile for a community based dating service of a social networking system as disclosed in Springstroh. The motivation for doing so would have been to aid users in creating and share effective dating profiles (See Springstroh’s par 0009 - 0010). 

Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed  04/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
(1) Applicant argues: that Mintz describes that "a video journal service program 67 receives video recordings of the registered user and stores the video recordings associated with the user's profile in a repository”. The "video journal service program 67 then creates a first video journal of compiled video clips cut or extracted from all of the user video recordings showing the user exhibiting a first emotion and the first video journal is stored in the repository associated with the user's profile". As is made clear through the citations from paragraphs 0041 - 0044 of Mintz, Mintz is describing that a video depicting a particular emotion of a user can be generated based on clips obtained from video recordings previously made by the user. In contrast, Applicant's amended independent Claim 1 recites "generating a short-form video...based on the digital dating-analytics dashboard. Generating a video using clips from previous video recordings as described in Mintz is not the same as generating a video based on analytics from an analytics dashboard, as claimed in independent Claim 1.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Firstly. the claim recites "generating a short-form video, configured for social media consumption channel, based on the digital dating-analytics dashboard; and posting the short-form video to the social media consumption channel”. Thus the claim is not generating a video based on analytics from an analytics dashboard, the claim is generating a video based on the digital dating-analytics dashboard. The digital dating analytics dashboard contain data about the user. Mintz in par 0041 - 0046, teaches a video journal service that capture data from the recorded videos and uses cognitive analysis of the user within the video recordings, such as emotions being expressed and education that can be determined through linguistic analysis. The video journal service program creates a first video journal of compiled video clips cut or extracted from all of the user video recordings showing the user exhibiting a first emotion and the first video journal is stored in the repository associated with the user's profile. Mintz in par 0068, further teaches that the video journal can be shared with other users, such as medical professionals, caregivers or family members.
Therefore, Mintz is generating a video that is based on information associated with the user. Furthermore, the profile in Mintz include information associated with emotions, education and other data. The dashboard in Finders include education information and other data. Therefore, Finder, in further view Stearns, in further view Cowdrey and in further view of Mintz teaches or suggests “generating a short-form video, configured for a social media consumption channel, based on the digital dating-analytics dashboard; and posting the short-form video to the social media consumption channel” as claimed.
(2) Applicant further argues: that new claim 23 has also been added, which further clarifies “wherein the short-form video is further based on the common interests section of the digital dating -analytics dashboard”. Mintz certainly fails to teach generating a video based on common interests information of an analytics dashboard.
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The examiner agrees that Mintz does not specifically disclose the new claim 23, however, previously cited art Stearns teaches in figure 10, teaches the presentation of a dashboard that is presented to the user in response to the user selecting Matches from the command bar 922. The matches dashboard include metrics associated with the user matching common interest or tastes in media. Each category including a score associated with the matching of the particular interest.
Mintz in par 0041 – 0046, further teaches a video journal service that capture data from the recorded videos and uses cognitive analysis of the user within the video recordings. The video journal service program creates a first video journal of compiled video clips cut or extracted from all of the user video recordings showing the user exhibiting a first emotion and the first video journal is stored in the repository associated with the user’s profile.
Furthermore, the previously cited prior art Koenig in par 0029, teaches generating a profile for an individual user, based upon a plurality of personalized data, creating a video to promote an individual, good, and/or service. Koenig in par 0037, further teaches that the users “tag” their profiles and/or videos by entering descriptive terms about the item being promoted in the video. These are then used as reference terms, such that when other users enter those terms in their preferred search criteria, that video would then be matched (for example, in the dining app, any video labeled “Thai” would appear to a user who enters “Thai” as a search preference). These profiles and videos are displayed to any user of the system who enters a certain set of matching criteria.
Accordingly, Koenig is providing videos that is specifically tag for particular topics, for example a video labeled “Thai” would appear to a user who enters “Thai” as a search preference. Accordingly, Thai is a common interest between at least two users. While Sterns show a dashboard and common interest, Koenig provided a video labeled for a specific tag. Therefore, Finder, in view of Sterns, in view of Cowdrey, in view of Mintz and in further view of Koenig teaches or suggests wherein the short-form video is further based on the common interests section of the digital dating -analytics dashboard” as claimed.
Applicant's remaining arguments with respect to claims are substantially encompassed in the arguments above, therefore examiner responds with the same rationale.
For at least the foregoing reasons, Examiner maintains prior art rejections.

Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARIEL MERCADO VARGAS whose telephone number is (571)270-1701. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am - 4:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Baderman can be reached at 571-272-3644. 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.



/ARIEL MERCADO-VARGAS/           Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118