Obviousness

Obviousness Analysis of US10936685 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103

The analysis focuses on whether the claims of US patent 10936685 would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) as of the patent's priority date of March 1, 2010, considering the cited prior art. The independent claims, which are claims 1, 2, and 3, define the core inventive concepts of the poll-based networking and e-commerce system, method, and computer program product, respectively. Key distinguishing features across these claims include the poll-based matching of users to other users or products/services, real-time results, presentation of an "exact matching number," and critically, the performance of operations on a "hand-held device" with results displayed in a "list reviewable by swiping from one result to another."

The relevant prior art references, based on their priority dates predating March 1, 2010, are:

1. US20090287763A1 (Kota): "Question server to facilitate communication between participants." (Priority: 2008-05-15)
2. US8249943B2 (Facebook): "Auction based polling." (Priority: 2007-05-31)

Other references like US20180330408A1 and US10019722B2 are not considered prior art against the primary claims due to their later priority/publication dates or shared priority date, respectively. US7130807B1 (Accenture) appears less relevant to the core social/e-commerce matching based on polls.

Analysis of Independent Claims 1, 2, and 3

Core Polling and Matching Functionality:
Claims 1, 2, and 3 describe a system, method, and product for:

• Receiving user information to generate a unique user profile.
• Providing one or more polling questions with a finite set of answers and a unique identification.
• Receiving and storing a selected answer.
• Comparing selected answers (of users against other users, or in Claim 1, also against profile descriptors of products/goods/services) to generate a likelihood of match.
• Displaying users, or products/goods/services (in Claim 1), that have a likelihood of match within a predetermined threshold.

Both Kota (US20090287763A1) and Facebook (US8249943B2) broadly disclose these core elements:

• User Profiles and Polling: Kota describes a "question server to facilitate communication between participants," which inherently involves user profiles and a mechanism for providing questions and receiving answers. Facebook explicitly details "auction based polling" within a social network, clearly teaching user participation in polls and the creation of user profiles.
• Matching Based on Polls: Kota's purpose is to "facilitate communication between participants," implying a matching process based on shared answers or interests derived from questions. Facebook, as a social networking platform, would naturally utilize user poll responses to connect users or personalize content, leading to a "likelihood of match."
• Displaying Results: Both systems would display results of matches or connections to users, consistent with their networking objectives.

E-commerce Aspect (Claim 1):
Claim 1 explicitly includes matching against "products, goods or services." In the context of an online networking system like those generally enabled by Kota or explicitly by Facebook, extending user preference data (collected via polls) to target or recommend products, goods, or services would have been an obvious business application for a PHOSITA in 2010. Social networks were already platforms for advertising and e-commerce, making the integration of user-generated polling data for product matching a natural and commercially motivated extension.

"Real-time" and "Exact Matching Number":
The patent emphasizes "real-time" results and an "exact matching number." While Kota and Facebook may not explicitly use these precise phrases, providing responsive feedback in online systems is a general goal to enhance user experience. The patent itself states, "As can be appreciated by one skilled in the art, there are numerous techniques for determining a likelihood of match between a particular user and a product, good or service, a non-limiting example of which includes a match number." This indicates that expressing a "likelihood of match" as a numerical value (an "exact matching number") is a matter of design choice and quantification, rather than a fundamentally new concept, and would have been obvious for presenting comparison results. Similarly, striving for "real-time" updates is a continuous engineering goal for online interactive systems.

Distinguishing Features: "Hand-held device" and "swiping" display:
These features are consistently present in all independent claims:

• "wherein one or more of the operations are carried out on a hand-held device"
• "and wherein two or more results based on the likelihood of match are displayed in a list reviewable by swiping from one result to another."

By the 2010 priority date, handheld devices, particularly smartphones with touchscreens, were widely prevalent and rapidly growing in usage.

• Hand-held Device: It would have been a matter of routine implementation for a PHOSITA to adapt any online networking or polling system (like those taught by Kota or Facebook) for use on a handheld device. This was a clear trend driven by user demand for mobile accessibility and convenience. References such as US8059101B2 describe techniques for handheld devices, including mobile phones, personal digital assistants, and tablet computers. US7180501B2 also describes gesture-based navigation for handheld devices like mobile phones and PDAs.
• Swiping to Review Results in a List: Swipe gestures for navigating content on touch-sensitive handheld devices were a well-known and intuitive user interface (UI) paradigm by 2010.
  • US8059101B2, filed in 2006, discusses "swipe gestures for touch screen keyboards" and their use on handheld devices. It describes various directions of swipes (leftward, rightward, upward, downward) for different functions.
  • US7180501B2, filed in 2004, teaches gesture-based navigation of a handheld user interface, noting that a user could "move the device left to pick a list to examine, then scroll that list by...". While describing device movement rather than finger swipes, it demonstrates the concept of gestural list navigation on handhelds.
  • Furthermore, contemporary discussions and common practices around 2010 (as reflected in later summaries discussing the prevalence of swipe gestures) indicate that "swipe gestures are now quite common and allow access to one or multiple functionality by swiping a list item to the right or the left". The intuitive nature of swiping for scrolling and navigating lists on touchscreens was well-established.

Motivation to Combine

A PHOSITA would have been motivated to combine the core poll-based matching functionality of systems like those described by US20090287763A1 (Kota) or US8249943B2 (Facebook) with the well-known capabilities and user interface paradigms of handheld devices.

The motivation for this combination would be to:

1. Improve User Convenience and Accessibility: Extend the reach of online networking and matching services to mobile users, allowing them to participate in polls and view results anytime, anywhere. This was a clear market driver.
2. Enhance User Experience: Leverage the intuitive touch-based interfaces of handheld devices. Displaying results in a list that users could easily navigate by swiping would significantly enhance the user experience on a small screen, providing a fluid and natural interaction method. This is a common design goal in mobile application development.
3. Expand Commercial Opportunities: For a system that matches users based on preferences, adapting it to mobile platforms with easy navigation, and extending matching to products/services, directly supports targeted advertising and e-commerce, which was a growing trend for online platforms, particularly social networks.

The combination of a poll-based matching system (e.g., from Kota or Facebook) with the application on a handheld device and the use of swipe gestures for list navigation (e.g., as widely taught or enabled by US8059101B2, US7180501B2, and general mobile UI/UX knowledge) would have been a predictable step for a PHOSITA seeking to implement such a system in a mobile environment. The individual elements were known, and the reasons for combining them to create a mobile-friendly, interactive polling and matching application were clear and commercially driven.