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 .
1. Claims 1-27 are currently pending in this application.
Claims 1, 10-11, 16, and 20 are amended as filed on 06/02/2025.
Claims 3-6, 13, and 18-19 are new as filed on 06/02/2025.
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 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 1-6, 8-10, 12-21, 23-25, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hardy (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2021/0297380 A1), in view of Park (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2020/0304496 A1), in view of Bullock (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2020/0036802 A1), and in further view of Geisner et al. (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2013/0044130 A1), hereinafter Geisner, and in further view of Delcourt et al. (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2019/0297079 A1), hereinafter Delcourt.
2. With respect to claim 1, Hardy taught an operating method of a server for providing a service (0037, lines 1-15, where the service is provided), the method comprising: receiving, from a terminal, a request for service (0037, lines 1-4); receiving from a terminal a request for a service (0037, lines 1-4); determining the country of the request based on the information (0113, lines 1-15, where the location is returned); compare pre-stored country information (0113, where the callback is based on the stored geographic location information of the database in 0100); and allowing the service to be provided to the terminal depending on a result of the comparison (0115, where the information is forwarded after verification).
However, Hardy did not explicitly state that the service was a video call service and that the request was a log in request for the video call service. On the other hand, Park did teach that the service was a video call service (0079, where the communication function is a video call via the video phone) and that the request was a log in request for the video call service (0079). Both of the systems of Hardy and Park are directed towards managing location information for communications and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Hardy, to utilize making video calls from mobile devices, as taught by Park, as video calls were a standard from of mobile communication that were contemporary to the time of the invention.
However, Hardy did not explicitly state that the information about the country was an estimated location; receiving a plurality of pieces of information used to determine information about a country where the terminal that attempted to request the login is located. On the other hand, Bullock did teach receiving a plurality of pieces of information used to determine information about a country where the terminal that attempted to request the login is located (0033-0034, where the known location, previous location, similar network address, and timestamp information is received. See also 0038 that shows that the information may be received from the client device or a database). Both of the systems of Hardy and Bullock are directed towards finding a devices location and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Hardy, to utilize weighting specific pieces of received information, as taught by Bullock, in order to more efficiently ascertain a device’s location.
However, Hardy did not explicitly state wherein the primary country estimate is based on country information extracted from each of the plurality of pieces of information, comparing the prestored country information, previously input when subscribing to the video call service, a secondary country estimate is based on the prestored country information; and when the primary country estimate is consistent with the secondary country estimate, the primary country estimate is determined to be where the terminal is located. On the other hand, Geisner did teach wherein the primary country estimate is based on country information extracted from each of the plurality of pieces of information (0062, the stored GPS data), comparing the prestored country information, previously input when subscribing to the video call service, a secondary country estimate is based on the prestored country information (0086, where it is given that the profile information would be stored during the subscription process in accordance with 0028. Accordingly the video communication can be seen in 0034); and when the primary country estimate is consistent with the secondary country estimate, the primary country estimate is determined to be where the terminal is located (0086, determining whether the share the same location). Both of the systems of Hardy and Geisner are directed towards determining a user’s location and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Hardy, to utilize comparing a user’s detected location to profile information, as taught by Geisner, in order to ensure that the detected location is correct.
However, Hardy did not explicitly state wherein a weighting is given to the plurality of pieces of information in order to assist in determining whether to allow the login. On the other hand, Delcourt did teach wherein a weighting is given to the plurality of pieces of information in order to assist in determining whether to allow the login (0093-0094, where the system is to simplify login in accordance with 0002). Both of the systems of Hardy and Delcourt are directed towards finding a devices location and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Hardy, to utilize weighting specific pieces of received information, as taught by Delcourt, in order to more efficiently ascertain a device’s location.
3. As for claims 2 and 21, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1 and 20 (respectively). In addition, Hardy taught wherein the plurality of pieces of information comprises Internet Protocol address information (0149, lines 1-7), Subscriber Identity Module (Park: 0020, where the USIM chip information is the SIM information) information, and Global Positioning System information (0149, lines 1-7).
4. As for claim 3, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 1. In addition, Delcourt taught wherein the primary country estimate is based on country information extracted from each of the plurality of pieces of information (0093).
5. As for claim 4, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 1. In addition, Delcourt taught wherein the weighting relates to a reliability associated with the plurality of pieces of information (0093-0094).
6. As for claim 5, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 1. In addition, Geisner taught wherein the weighting assigns a priority given to GPS information provided within the plurality of pieces of information (0062).
7. As for claim 6, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 1. In addition, Delcourt taught wherein the weighting assigns different priorities to the plurality of pieces of information based on country specific criteria (0050 & 0088).
8. As for claims 8 and 23, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1 and 20 (respectively).. In addition, Hardy taught wherein the pre-stored country information is information determined using at least one of IP information, GPS information, and SIM information input by a user of the terminal when subscribing to the video call service (0025, the selected geographic location, where the IP or GPS information can be seen in 0113, and where the video call service was previously taught by Park: 0079. See also Bullock: 0063, which shows pre-storing location data).
9. As for claims 9 and 24, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1 and 20 (respectively). In addition, Hardy taught in response to the secondary country estimate being consistent with the primary country estimate, allowing the login requested by the terminal (0115, where it is forwarded after the verification of 0121. Accordingly, Park shows authenticating a login request for a video call in 0079. Thus, Hardy taught providing the service if the location is verified and Park taught that the service could be logging into a video call).
10. As for claims 10 and 25, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1 and 24 (respectively). In addition, Hardy taught in response to the primary country estimate not being determined to be where the terminal is located, blocking the log in of the terminal (0113, where it is obvious that if the verification fails, then the messages will not be forwarded. For more explicit showings, see also 0031, where the user can block messages and 0033 shows that the geographic location is taking into consideration for message receipt purposes. It appears obvious that blocking a location is included. Further, see also 0141, where the weather events are rejected as they move to a different location).
11. As for claims 12 and 27, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 11 and 26 (respectively). In addition, Hardy taught wherein the additional information comprises time information set in the terminal, and locale information comprising country information set in the terminal (0207 & 0209, where this shows the locale information and the time information, and the location information is country information in accordance with 0150).
12. As for claim 13, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 1. In addition, Park taught wherein allowing the login includes allowing the video call service to be used (0079, where the login process is bypassed in the user having the credentials stored in accordance with 0002 & 0010).
13. As for claim 14, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 13. In addition, Bullock taught in response to country information extracted from each of the additional information being all the same, determining a country included in the same country information as the information about the country (0033, where this is implicitly taught by the scenario where all of the information matches).
14. As for claim 15, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 11. In addition, Hardy taught in response to the country included in the stored country information and the determined country of the log in request being the same as the result of the comparison, allowing the log in of the terminal (0115, where the message is forwarded based on the verifying of 0113).
15. As for claim 16, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 11. In addition, Hardy taught blocking the login requested by the terminal when the tertiary country estimate is not consistent with where the terminal is located (0113, where it is obvious that if the verification fails, then the messages will not be forwarded. For more explicit showings, see also 0031, where the user can block messages and 0033 shows that the geographic location is taking into consideration for message receipt purposes. It appears obvious that blocking a location is included. Further, see also 0141, where the weather events are rejected as they move to a different location. See also Delcourt: 0109-0110).
16. As for claim 17, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 1. In addition, Hardy taught computer readable recording medium having recorded thereon a program for performing a method according to claim 1 (0035, lines 1-3).
17. As for claim 18, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 1. In addition, Hardy taught wherein the method is performed using a cloud application (0100).
18. As for claim 19, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 1. In addition, Hardy taught wherein the method is performed in conjunction with an application implemented on the terminal (0100).
12. With respect to claim 20, Hardy taught a server (0037, lines 1-15, where the service is provided) comprising: a communication interface receiving a request for a service from a terminal (0037, lines 1-4), and receiving information to be used to determine a country of the request (0113, lines 9-15, where the correlation is requested and the location information can be country information in accordance with 0024. See also 0150); a memory storing country information received from the terminal when the terminal subscribes to the service (0035, where the medium is the memory and is used to perform the functions of 0113); and a processor determining the country of the request based on the information (0113, where the processor is given), compare pre-stored country information (0113, where the callback is based on the stored geographic location information of the database in 0100), and allowing the log in of the terminal depending on a result of the comparison (0115, where the information is forwarded after verification).
However, Hardy did not explicitly state that the service was a video call service and that the request was a log in request for the video call service. On the other hand, Park did teach that the service was a video call service (0079, where the communication function is a video call via the video phone) and that the request was a log in request for the video call service (0079). Both of the systems of Hardy and Park are directed towards managing location information for communications and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Hardy, to utilize making video calls from mobile devices, as taught by Park, as video calls were a standard from of mobile communication that were contemporary to the time of the invention.
However, Hardy did not explicitly state receiving a plurality of pieces of information used to determine information about a country where the terminal that attempted to request the login is located; wherein the determining of the information about the country comprises: based on country information extracted from each of the plurality of pieces of information: if the extracted country information is all the same, determining a country included in the same country information as the information about the country where the terminal that attempted to request the login is located; and if the extracted country information is not the same, determining a country as the information about the country based on at least one selected from the group consisting of a largest number of country information among the extracted country information and a weight for each of the extracted country information. On the other hand, Bullock did teach receiving a plurality of pieces of information used to determine information about a country where the terminal that attempted to request the login is located (0033-0034, where the known location, previous location, similar network address, and timestamp information is received. See also 0038 that shows that the information may be received from the client device or a database); wherein the determining of the information about the country comprises: based on country information extracted from each of the plurality of pieces of information: if the extracted country information is all the same, determining a country included in the same country information as the information about the country where the terminal that attempted to request the login is located (0033-0034, where this feature is implicitly taught as the case where all of the information is in agreement, then the location is clear); and if the extracted country information is not the same, determining a country as the information about the country based on at least one selected from the group consisting of a largest number of country information among the extracted country information and a weight for each of the extracted country information (0033, where the weights assigned to the location information can be seen). Both of the systems of Hardy and Bullock are directed towards finding a devices location and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Hardy, to utilize weighting specific pieces of received information, as taught by Bullock, in order to more efficiently ascertain a device’s location.
However, Hardy did not explicitly state wherein the primary country estimate is based on country information extracted from each of the plurality of pieces of information, comparing the prestored country information, input by a user of the terminal when subscribing to the video call service, a secondary country estimate is based on the prestored country information; and when the primary country estimate is consistent with the secondary country estimate, the primary country estimate is determined to be where the terminal is located. On the other hand, Geisner did teach wherein the primary country estimate is based on country information extracted from each of the plurality of pieces of information (0062, the stored GPS data), comparing the prestored country information, input by a user of the terminal when subscribing to the video call service, a secondary country estimate is based on the prestored country information (0086, where it is given that the profile information would be stored during the subscription process in accordance with 0028. Accordingly the video communication can be seen in 0034); and when the primary country estimate is consistent with the secondary country estimate, the primary country estimate is determined to be where the terminal is located (0086, determining whether the share the same location). Both of the systems of Hardy and Geisner are directed towards determining a user’s location and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Hardy, to utilize comparing a user’s detected location to profile information, as taught by Geisner, in order to ensure that the detected location is correct.
However, Hardy did not explicitly state wherein a weighting is given to the plurality of pieces of information in order to assist in determining whether to allow the login. On the other hand, Delcourt did teach wherein a weighting is given to the plurality of pieces of information in order to assist in determining whether to allow the login (0093-0094, where the system is to simplify login in accordance with 0002). Both of the systems of Hardy and Delcourt are directed towards finding a devices location and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Hardy, to utilize weighting specific pieces of received information, as taught by Delcourt, in order to more efficiently ascertain a device’s location.
Claims 7 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hardy, in view of Park, in view of Bullock, in view of Geisner, in view of Delcourt, in view of ARTMAN et al. (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2017/0286127 A1), hereinafter Artman, and in further view of Levi et al. (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2017/0318100 A1), hereinafter Levi.
13. As for claims 7 and 22, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 3 and 20 (respectively). In addition, Hardy did not explicitly state wherein the pre-stored country information is information comprises a timezone setting. On the other hand, Artman did teach wherein the pre-stored country information is information comprises a timezone setting (0077). Both of the systems of Bullock and Artman are directed towards are directed towards determining geographic location of devices and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Bullock, to utilize using a time-zone in order to determine a geographic location, as taught by Artman, as doing so provides an easy and efficient method for determining locations that was contemporary to the time of the invention.
However, Hardy did not explicitly state that the pre-stored information included language information. On the other hand, Levi did teach that the pre-stored information included language information (0025, where the location determiner utilized retrieved session information, which can include a language preference in accordance with 0014-0015. Accordingly, 0027 shows that the language preference refers to a human spoken language). Both of the systems of Hardy and Levi are directed towards determining a user’s location and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Hardy, to utilize weighing language data to the effect of detecting a location, as taught by Levi, as using language data has been utilized by many entities throughout history in order to determine someone’s location.
Claims 11 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hardy, in view of Park, in view of Bullock, in view of Geisner, in view of Delcourt, and in further view of Taylor et al. (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2015/0256550 A1), hereinafter Taylor.
14. As for claims 11 and 26, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1 and 24 (respectively). In addition, Bullock taught determining a tertiary country estimate the information about the country where the terminal that attempted to request the login is located based on the additional information (0050, where if the user moves to a new location, this will teach the tertiary estimate under broadest reasonable interpretation); comparing the tertiary country estimate with the secondary country estimate (0033); and allowing the login requested by the terminal depending on the result of the comparison (Park: 0079).
However, while the combination of Hardy and Geisner taught the primary country estimate being compared to the secondary country estimate did not explicitly state when the primary country estimate (Geisner: 0086 for example), the combination of Hardy and Geinser did not explicitly state when the primary country estimate is inconsistent with the secondary country estimate, requesting additional information from the terminal. On the other hand, Taylor did teach when the primary country estimate is inconsistent with the secondary country estimate, requesting additional information from the terminal (0038 & 0043, which shows fraudulent/inconsistent data requiring additional information and the country estimates were previously taught above by Geisner: 0086). Both of the systems of Bullock and Taylor are directed towards estimated a user’s location and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Bullock, to utilize requesting additional user information, as taught by Taylor, in order to provide more accurate prediction estimates.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JOSEPH L GREENE whose telephone number is (571)270-3730. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 10:00am - 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, Nicholas R. Taylor can be reached at 571 272-3889. 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.
/JOSEPH L GREENE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443