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
Status of the Application
The following is a Non-Final Office Action in response to Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed 2/3/2025. Claims 1, 3-7, 9-13, and 15-21 have been examined in this application.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/3/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 4-7, 10-13, and 16-18 are acknowledged. Applicant’s addition of new claims 19-21 are acknowledged. Applicant’s cancellation of claims 2, 8, and 14 are acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
Based on Applicant’s arguments on remarks page 12 and Applicant’s amendments the previous claim objections have been withdrawn.
On Remarks pages 12-13, Applicant argues that the claims do not recite an abstract idea. The Examiner has carefully considered Applicant’s arguments however the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner first notes that the Examiner has updated the below 101 rejection on RCE in order to reflect Applicant’s claims as presented 2/3/2025 and current USPTO guidance.
Specifically here the claims recite the idea of generating meeting invites based on information known or collected about potential invites and tracking invitees acceptance and attendance to the meeting. The claim recite observations, judgements, opinions and calculations that a human operator or operators could perform, like collecting by requesting user information such as location and preferences, correlating and determining information according to the collected information and stored information, selecting venues for a meeting based on location and other constraints like time, generating invites, sending invites to different groups of desired users like coworkers, overlay information over the information, generate maps, receiving selections at a display or based on a display of information, and tracking acceptance and attendance at an event.
Further the idea of generating meeting invites based on information known or collected about potential invites and tracking invitees acceptance and attendance to the meeting is subject matter relating to managing personal behavior or relationship or interactions between people (including social activities) which is a certain methods of organizing human activity. The Examiner notes that the Examiner has updated the certain methods of organizing human activity here on RCE. Again the claims recite limitations or activities a human or humans could perform like collecting by requesting user information such as location and preferences, correlating and determining information according to the collected information and stored information, selecting venues for a meeting based on location and other constraints like time, generating invites, sending invites to different groups of desired users like coworkers, overlay information over the information, generate maps, receiving selections at a display or based on a display of information, and tracking acceptance and attendance at an event.
Therefore the Examiner finds the claims still do recite an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Applicant’s arguments on page 13, that the Examiner ignores several technical limitations like GPS, interfaces, applications, interfaces, overlays, and digital invitations have been addressed under the practical application and significantly more steps. Therefore the Examiner does not find the argument persuasive.
On Remarks page 13, Applicant argues preemption. The Examiner maintains the response from the Final Rejection dated 11/5/2024 pages 4-5 (cited herein):
On Remarks page 13, Applicant argues preemption with respect to the 101 rejection. The Examiner has carefully considered Applicant’s arguments with respect to pinging mobile device via GPS services and generating automatic calendar invitations, however the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
See MPEP 2106.05 Eligibility Step 2A: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception [R-07.2022](cited herein):
While preemption is the concern underlying the judicial exceptions, it is not a standalone test for determining eligibility. Rapid Litig. Mgmt. v. CellzDirect, Inc., 827 F.3d 1042, 1052, 119 USPQ2d 1370, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Instead, questions of preemption are inherent in and resolved by the two-part framework from Alice Corp. and Mayo (the Alice/Mayo test referred to by the Office as Steps 2A and 2B). Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1150, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379, 115 USPQ2d 1152, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 2015). It is necessary to evaluate eligibility using the Alice/Mayo test, because while a preemptive claim may be ineligible, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate that a claim is eligible. Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191-92 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10-11 n.14 (1981) ("We rejected in Flook the argument that because all possible uses of the mathematical formula were not pre-empted, the claim should be eligible for patent protection"). See also Synopsys v. Mentor Graphics, 839 F.3d at 1150, 120 USPQ2d at 1483; FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1098, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1320-21, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Sequenom, 788 F.3d at 1379, 115 USPQ2d at 1158. Several Federal Circuit decisions, however, have noted the absence of preemption when finding claims eligible under the Alice/Mayo test. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1102-03 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Rapid Litig. Mgmt. v. CellzDirect, Inc., 827 F.3d 1042, 1052, 119 USPQ2d 1370, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016); BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350-52, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1243-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
And MPEP 2106.079B) Evaluating Applicant’s Response [R-10.2019](cited herein):
(4) If applicant argues that the claim is specific and does not preempt all applications of the exception, the examiner should reconsider Step 2A of the eligibility analysis, e.g., to determine whether the claim is directed to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. If an examiner still determines that the claim is directed to a judicial exception, the examiner should then reconsider in Step 2B whether the additional elements in combination (as well as individually) amount to an inventive concept, e.g., because they are more than the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional elements. Such reconsideration is appropriate because, although preemption is not a standalone test for eligibility, it remains the underlying concern that drives the two-part framework from Alice Corp. and Mayo (Steps 2A and 2B). Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1150, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Rapid Litig. Mgmt. v. CellzDirect, Inc., 827 F.3d 1042, 1052, 119 USPQ2d 1370, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379, 115 USPQ2d 1152, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
There based on the above preemption is not the standalone test for eligibility, however the Examiner has reconsidered Step2A and Step2B in view of Applicant’s arguments regarding preemption, based on the above cited MPEP sections.
Specifically here a person could ping another person for information(for example request information), the fact that the claims recite at such a high level of this received information being GPS information merely recites mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea and Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo), additionally see Bilynsky (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2014/0236808), Haberman (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2015/0142313), Bellissimo et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2016/0212076) cited in the 101 rejection below . Further these merely recites generally linking the use the judicial exception to the online location aware (like GPS) device technological environment or field of use. As shown above here and as recited in the claims Applicant did not invent GPS or improve the GPS, rather Applicant is merely using GPS to receive information to implement the abstract idea of generating meeting invites based on information known or collected about potential invitees and tracking invitees acceptance and attendance to the meeting, therefore this results in limitations that are not a practical application or significantly more as detailed in the office action below.
Finally on page 13 of Remarks, Applicant argues that the claims do not recite an abstract idea as the claims recite GPS and receiving selections from a graphical interface which cannot be performed in the human mind. The Examiner has carefully considered Applicant’s arguments however the Examiner respectfully disagrees. A user can collect location information from another user by for example asking them for it or requesting it, further a user can request a selection from another user by for example having them look at a display of selections and having them pick one. The additional elements that this data location collection that could be performed by a human or humans is instead broadly recited as being done by “GPS” and that the selections are instead happening through computer interfaces have been addressed under the practical application and significantly more steps of the analysis. Therefore the Examiner does not find the argument persuasive.
On Remarks page 14, Applicant argues that the Office ignores several limitations that are not generic components. Specifically here Applicant argues “pinging of GPS.” The Examiner disagrees. Here as recited in the claims this is merely requesting location information. A user could perform this feature as a user could request location information (whether past, current, or future) from another user. The additional element that these limitations a human or humans could reasonably and practically perform are instead being broadly performed via GPS is discussed in the practical application and or significantly more steps of 101 analysis below.
Further with respect to selections, a user could provide a display with a map and markers that indicate location of venues, a user could make a selection of a venue based on that display map. The additional elements that these limitations a human or humans could reasonably and practically perform are instead performed on computer “interfaces” are discussed in the practical application and or significantly more steps of 101 analysis below.
On Remarks pages 14-15, Applicant argues that the claims recite a technical solution to a technological problem in real time venue reservation and automated digital calendar. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Here, Applicant has not argued an unconventional technical solution as required by MPEP 2106.05(a) Improvements to the Functioning of A computer or to any other technology or technical field [R-07.2022](cited herein):
If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. For example, in McRO, the court relied on the specification’s explanation of how the particular rules recited in the claim enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could only be performed subjectively by humans, when determining that the claims were directed to improvements in computer animation instead of an abstract idea. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313-14, 120 USPQ2d at 1100-01. In contrast, the court in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC relied on the specification’s failure to provide details regarding the manner in which the invention accomplished the alleged improvement when holding the claimed methods of delivering broadcast content to cellphones ineligible. 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Therefore the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Further, Applicant’s arguments all appear to be directed towards improvements in the business method (or abstract idea) of generating meeting invites based on information known or collected about potential invitees and tracking invitees acceptance and attendance to the meeting, not an improvement in computers, as the claims merely recite an interface to provide a user with more information to facilitate meetings. As MPEP 2106.05(a) Improvements to the Functioning of A computer or to any other technology or technical field [R-07.2022] cited herein shows that does not make a claim eligible:
However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology.
Therefore the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
On Remarks pages 15, Applicant argues that pinging is not data gathering. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. A user or user could request (e.g. ping) another user for location information, for example by asking them. The additional element that this limitation a human or humans could perform are instead recited as being performed by known technology like GPS merely results in limitations that are not a practical application or significantly more as discussed in the 101 rejection below.
It is noted in MPEP 2106.05(g) extra-solution activity “ includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. “ This is the same case here as the location data is obtained via GPS to then perform the meeting invite process.
Therefore the Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments.
On Remarks pages 15-18, Applicant argues the claims recite limitations that are significantly more, and argues USPTO Example 4 with respect to this argument.
Example 4 was found to be eligible because the claims improved GPS. See Example 4 (cited herein):
“The meaningful limitations placed upon the application of the claimed mathematical operations show that the claim is not directed to performing mathematical operations on a computer alone. Rather, the combination of elements impose meaningful limits in that the mathematical operations are applied to improve an existing technology (global positioning) by improving the signal-acquisition sensitivity of the receiver to extend the usefulness of the technology into weak-signal environments and providing the location information for display on the mobile device. All of these features, especially when viewed in combination, amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B: YES). The claim is eligible.”
This is not the case here, Applicant has not argued or claimed an improved GPS as in Example 4, rather Applicant is merely using known technology GPS to perform the idea of generating meeting invites based on information known or collected about potential invitees and tracking invitees acceptance and attendance to the meeting.
USPTO Examples: Abstract ideas page 1 states
“The following examples should be used in conjunction with the 2014 Interim Eligibility Guidance. As the examples are intended to be illustrative only, they should be interpreted based on the fact patterns set forth below. Other fact patterns may have different eligibility outcomes.” Therefore Example 4 and the present application have different fact patterns and therefore can have different eligibility outcomes.”
Therefore the Examiner respectfully disagrees and maintains the rejection.
On Remarks pages 18-19, Applicant argues the 103 rejection. Here Applicant argues that while the user current location may be automatically captured by the system the prior art does not identify a venue based on a location or radius of the current location.
The Examiner disagrees. The cited prior of Sinkov is in the field of setting up meetings between participants (see abstract). In paragraphs 0010-0011 Sinkov teaches a user provides meeting conditions like distance they will travel (Sinkov provides examples like 13 miles max or 30 mins driving, which is a radius), and then selected venues are based off of that. Sinkov further teaches a user can select a venue and options of venues can be provided according to rules or constraints (see paragraphs 0032 and 0039) which can be before friend selection (see paragraph 0035)). It is further noted that the current location of a user is automatically captured by the system and is used to seek a meeting with friends (see paragraph 0034).
Therefore the Examiner respectfully disagrees
Further the Examiner notes that the Examiner has updated the prior art rejection to reflect Applicant’s other amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9-13, and 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 3-6, and 19 recite a process as the claims recite a method.
Claims 7, 9-12, and 20 recite a machine as the claims recite devices with processors and instructions. Claims 13, 15-18, and 21 recite an article of manufacture as the claims recite a non-transitory computer readable with executable code being executed by processors.
The claim(s) 1, 3-7, 9-13, and 15-21 recite(s) the idea of generating meeting invites based on information known or collected about potential invitees and tracking invitees acceptance and attendance to the meeting. The idea of generating meeting invites based on information known or collected about potential invitees and tracking invitees acceptance and attendance to the meeting is a mental process. Specifically here the claims recite observations, evaluations, judgements and opinions that be performed by the human mind or with pen and paper, like collecting by requesting user information such as location and preferences, correlating and determining information according to the collected information and stored information, selecting venues for a meeting based on location and other constraints like time, generating invites, sending invites to different groups of desired users like coworkers, overlay information over the information, generate maps, receiving selections at a display or based on a display of information, and tracking acceptance and attendance at an event.
Further the idea of generating meeting invites based on information known or collected about potential invitees and tracking invitees acceptance and attendance to the meeting is subject matter relating to managing personal behavior or relationship or interactions between people (including social activities) which is according a certain methods of organizing human activity, like collecting by requesting user information such as location and preferences, correlating and determining information according to the collected information and stored information, selecting venues for a meeting based on location and other constraints like time, generating invites, sending invites to different groups of desired users like coworkers, overlay information over the information, generate maps, receiving selections at a display or based on a display of information, and tracking acceptance and attendance at an event.
Mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity are each in the groupings of enumerated abstracts ideas, and hence the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims merely recite limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application in that the claims merely recite:
(1) Adding the words “apply it” ( or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Specifically as recited in the claims: Implementing the above abstract idea on a computer or merely using the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea through the computer elements of one or more collaboration management devices, client devices, database, API, interfaces, invites being digital, memory comprising programmed instructions stored thereon and one or more processors configured to execute the stored programmed instructions to/ wherein the processors are further configured to execute the stored programmed instructions to:, a non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon instructions for locations mapping to facilitate collaboration for users sharing common attributes comprising executable code which when executed by one or more processors, causes the processors to:/ wherein the executable code when executed by the processors further causes the processors to:, and GPS ( see claims 1 , 4-7, 9-13, and 15-21).
Specifically the claims recite limitations that are recited at such a high level of generality that they recite functions a human or humans could perform like collecting by requesting user information such as location and preferences, correlating and determining information according to the collected information and stored information, selecting venues for a meeting based on location and other constraints like time, generating invites, sending invites to different groups of desired users like coworkers, overlay information over the information, generate maps, receiving selections at a display or based on a display of information, and tracking acceptance and attendance at an event.
The additional elements discussed above here in the claims merely recite additional elements to invoke computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
(2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP
2106.05(g)). Specifically as recited in the claims: mere data gathering in conjunction
with the abstract idea (see claims 1, 3-7, 9-13, and 15-21)
And (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular
technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Specifically as
recited in the claims: generally linking the use the judicial exception to the online
location aware (like GPS) device technological environment or field of use (see claims
1, 3-7, 9-13, and 15-21)
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount
to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims merely recite
limitations that are not indicative of an inventive concept ("significantly more") in that the
claims merely recite:
(1) Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously
known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception
(see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo). Specifically as recited in the claims:
(a) determine a device location through for example GPS (see claims 1, 7, and
13)
-Bilynsky (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US
2014/0236808) paragraph 0005 "In the prior art, many software applications have been
developed for portable electronic devices that enable the portable electronic devices to
receive GPS Signals, calculate a location, and transmit that location over a
communications network to the computer of a specific user. Such software applications
are typically used by companies to track the locations of deliveries or workers.
Variations of such software applications are also used by parents to track the location of
children and other family members. Such prior art software applications are exemplified
by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0022255 to Singhal, entitled Systems
And Methods For Location And Movement Tracking Using GPS Enabled Cell Phones."
- Haberman (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US
2015/0142313) paragraph 0033" The starting point may be provided by the user or
determined by the mapping application, such as through GPS information from the
client logic device 105 or other device or app-based location information known to those
having ordinary skill in the art"
- Bellissimo et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US
2016/0212076) paragraph 0079" For example, a location may be identified by the user
manually inputting a location or selecting a location using a map application, or by the
system and/or client device automatically using the GPS location of the client device,
cellular triangulation, proximity to and strength of wireless networks, and/or any other
methods known to those skilled in the art for obtaining location"
(b) electronic recordkeeping (see claims 3, 9, 15, and 19-21) (see MPEP 2106.05 (d) Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity [R-07.2022](cited herein): Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd v. CLS Bank Int'!, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramerciaf. 772 F3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log)
(c) storing information in a database (see claims 4, 10, and 16)
- Haims et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US
2003/0105820) paragraph 0064" Further, although three separate tables are shown,
those skilled in the art will recognize that one or more database structures may be used
to stored the described data"
- Solaru (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US
2008/0097817) paragraph 0023" It will be apparent to one of skill in the art that any
type of supplier information can be stored in the supplier database"
- Jensen et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US
2009/0030896) paragraph 0005 " Conventional database systems can include an
inference engine that processes instructions within the limitation of a provided set of
rules. Conventional database systems can also utilize a plurality of tables to store
information such as users, relationships of users, and access privileges of users.
Tables can also store information related to other databases within or outside of a
collection of databases. A Federation is one example of such a database system."
(e) receiving and transmitting data over a network., e.g. using the Internet to
gather data (see claims 1, 3-7, 9-13, and 15-21) (see MPEP 2106.05 (d) Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity [R-07.2022](cited herein): Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added))
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6-7, 9, 12-13, 15, and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sinkov (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2014/0006518) further in view of Chang (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2015/0193819).
As per claim 1, Sinkov teaches A method for location mapping to facilitate collaboration for users sharing common attributes, (see paragraphs 0034-0036,
Examiner's note: teaches organizing meetings between participants).
the method implemented by one or more collaboration management devices and comprising: (see paragraphs 0052-0053, Examiner's note: software
running on a computer to perform functions).
Receiving location from a first client device via one or more communication networks to determine an authenticated user geolocation for an authenticated user via a location aware service provided by the first client device; (see paragraphs 0010, 0034,
and 0037, Examiner's note: teaches a user logs into the system and is considered a
meeting organizer (see paragraph 0010), teaches the system may determine the user's
current location automatically (see paragraph 0034) and that the user devices include
location aware devices (see paragraph 0037)).
identifying based on stored venue data venues that satisfy one or more venue parameters and have a stored venue geolocation within a first radius of the authenticated user geolocation, wherein the venue parameters are received via a collaboration application executing on the first client device; (see paragraphs 0010-0011, 0032, 0035, 0039, Examiner’s note: paragraphs 0010-0011 teaches a user provides meeting conditions like distance they will travel and then selected venues are based off of that. Further teaches a user can select a venue and options of venues can be provided according to rules or constraints (see paragraphs 0032 and 0039) which can be before friend selection (see paragraph 0035)).
Receiving location from a plurality of client devices via the communication networks to determine registered user geolocations for registered users via a second location service provided by the client devices after identification of the venues; (see
paragraphs 0035 and 0039, Examiner's note: teaches after the selection of a
preliminary list of venues the system may match the primary list of venues against travel
times for each of the meeting candidates).
comparing the registered user geolocations to the stored venue geolocation to identify one or more of the registered users within a second radius of the venue geolocation for the one of the venues; (see paragraphs 0035-0036 and 0039, Examiner's note: teaches comparing users to venues to determine lists of users for different venues).
and generating for display by the first client device, and outputting to the first client device via the communication networks and the collaboration application, a venue selection interface comprising obtained social data for the one of the venues generated-from stored user data for the one or more of the registered users and stored visit data for the one of the venues; (see paragraphs 0035-0036, 0039, Examiner's note: teaches
providing information to the scheduling user related to venues and friends for the
different venues)
and sending via the communication networks one or more digital calendar invitations via other collaboration applications executing on one or more of the client devices associated with the one or more of the registered users in response to a third selection via the venue selection interface and from the authenticated user (see paragraphs 0036 and 0040, Examiner's note: sending meeting invites to users at a location).
Sinkov clearly teaches receiving a location from a location aware device, Sinkov
does not expressly teach receiving the location by requesting information via a GPS
service or more specifically as recited in the claims (1) pinging a client device via a first
global positioning system (GPS) service and (2) pinging other client devices via a
second global positioning system (GPS) service. Further while as shown above Sinkov clearly teaches a user selecting a venue or venues for a meeting in a computer interface Sinkov does not expressly teach selecting a venue on a map or more specifically as recited in the claims (3) generating for display by the first client device, and providing via the communication networks and the collaboration application, a venue preview interface comprising a map comprising markers for each of the venues, wherein the venue preview interface is configured to display one of a plurality of indications of one of the venues overlaid on the map in response to a first selection from the authenticated user of one of the selectable markers for the one of the venues;
in response to a second selection from the authenticated user of the one of the indications: selecting a venue
However, Chang which is in the art of establishing meetings between individuals (see paragraph 0005) teaches receiving the location by requesting information via a GPS service or more specifically as recited in the claims (1) pinging a client device via a first global positioning system (GPS) service and (2) pinging other client devices via a second global positioning system (GPS) service (see paragraphs 0007, 0027, 0034, 0079, 0118, 0158, Examiner’s note: determining location by GPS from various devices to determine meeting location. A user can determine what location information they would like to share or have collected and that information be can collected over time).
And selecting a venue on a map or more specifically as recited in the claims (3) generating for display by the first client device, and providing via the communication networks and the collaboration application, a venue preview interface comprising a map comprising markers for each of the venues, wherein the venue preview interface is configured to display one of a plurality of indications of one of the venues overlaid on the map in response to a first selection from the authenticated user of one of the selectable markers for the one of the venues; in response to a second selection from the authenticated user of the one of the indications: selecting a venue (see paragraph 0041, 0048, and 0059, Examiner’s note: teaches providing additional information in response to a user’s selection on a map (see paragraph 0041). Further teaches locations for a venue can be selected from a map (see paragraphs 0048, 0059)),
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Sinkov with the aforementioned teachings from Chang with the motivation of providing one of many
known common ways to determine location from a location aware device (see Chang paragraphs 0007, 0027, 0034, 0079, 0118, 0158) as well as providing a known way to select a location from multiple locations on a map (see Chang paragraphs 0041, 0048, 0059),when determining a location from a location aware device (see Sinkov paragraphs 0015, 0034,0037, and 0039) and a user selecting a location from a multiple locations are both known (see Sinkov paragraphs 0010, 0032, 0035, and 0039).
As per claim 3, Sinkov teaches
further comprising determining from the stored user data one or more roles for the registered users within an organization associated with the authenticated user, wherein the social data comprises another number of the registered users having each of the roles and the portion of the stored user data comprises an identity of the subset of the one or more of the registered users. (see paragraphs 0034-0035 and 0040,
Examiner's note: teaches there are many users in the system beyond just the user's
friend list (see paragraph 0040), where a user can select a subset of users to provide a
meeting invite to from the friend list (see paragraphs 0034-0035) and later teaches that
the meeting invite may later be provided to others not originally on that list (se
paragraph 050)).
As per claim 6, Sinkov teaches
further comprising: generating and providing to the first client device for display via the communication networks and the collaboration application a scheduling interface to facilitate submission by the authenticated user of a time window and an identity of the one or more of the registered users; and generating the digital calendar invitations based on the time window. (see paragraphs 0034-0039, Examiner's note: here teaches
the meetings include a time element (see paragraphs 0034-0039) and that user's are
filtered based on that time element (see paragraph 0039) and providing invitations to
users based on that information (see paragraph 0036)).
As per claim 7, Sinkov teaches A collaboration management device, comprising memory comprising programmed instructions stored thereon and one or more processors configured to execute the stored programmed instructions to: (see paragraphs 0052-0053, Examiner's note: software running on
a computer to perform functions).
Receiving location from a first client device via one or more communication networks to determine an authenticated user geolocation for an authenticated user via a location aware service provided by the first client device; (see paragraphs 0010, 0034,
and 0037, Examiner's note: teaches a user logs into the system and is considered a meeting organizer (see paragraph 0010), teaches the system may determine the user's
current location automatically (see paragraph 0034) and that the user devices include
location aware devices (see paragraph 0037)).
identify based on stored venue data venues that satisfy one or more venue parameters and have a stored venue geolocation within a first radius of the authenticated user geolocation, wherein the venue parameters are received via a collaboration application executing on the first client device; (see paragraphs 0010-0011, 0032, 0035, 0039, Examiner’s note: paragraphs 0010-0011 teaches a user provides meeting conditions like distance they will travel and then selected venues are based off of that. Further teaches a user can select a venue and options of venues can be provided according to rules or constraints (see paragraphs 0032 and 0039) which can be before friend selection (see paragraph 0035)).
Receiving location from a plurality of client devices via the communication networks to determine registered user geolocations for registered users via a second location service provided by the client devices after identification of the venues; (see
paragraphs 0035 and 0039, Examiner's note: teaches after the selection of a
preliminary list of venues the system may match the primary list of venues against travel
times for each of the meeting candidates).
compare the registered user geolocations to the stored venue geolocation to identify one or more of the registered users within a second radius of the venue geolocation for the one of the venues; (see paragraphs 0035-0036 and 0039, Examiner's note: teaches comparing users to venues to determine lists of users for different venues).
and generate for display by the first client device, and output to the first client device via the communication networks and the collaboration application, a venue selection interface comprising obtained social data for the one of the venues generated from stored user data for the one or more of the registered users and stored visit data for the one of the venues; (see paragraphs 0035-0036, 0039, Examiner's note: teaches
providing information to the scheduling user related to venues and friends for the
different venues)
and send via the communication networks one or more digital calendar invitations via other collaboration applications executing on one or more of the client devices associated with the one or more of the registered users in response to a third selection via the venue selection interface and from the authenticated user (see paragraphs 0036 and 0040, Examiner's note: sending meeting invites to users at a location).
Sinkov clearly teaches receiving a location from a location aware device, Sinkov
does not expressly teach receiving the location by requesting information via a GPS
service or more specifically as recited in the claims (1) ping a client device via a first
global positioning system (GPS) service and (2) ping other client devices via a
second global positioning system (GPS) service. Further while as shown above Sinkov clearly teaches a user selecting a venue or venues for a meeting in a computer interface Sinkov does not expressly teach selecting a venue on a map or more specifically as recited in the claims (3) generate for display by the first client device, and provide via the communication networks and the collaboration application, a venue preview interface comprising a map comprising markers for each of the venues, wherein the venue preview interface is configured to display one of a plurality of indications of one of the venues overlaid on the map in response to a first selection from the authenticated user of one of the selectable markers for the one of the venues; in response to a second selection from the authenticated user of the one of the indications: selecting a venue
However, Chang which is in the art of establishing meetings between individuals (see paragraph 0005) teaches receiving the location by requesting information via a GPS service or more specifically as recited in the claims (1) ping a client device via a first global positioning system (GPS) service and (2) ping other client devices via a second global positioning system (GPS) service (see paragraphs 0007, 0027, 0034, 0079, 0118, 0158, Examiner’s note: determining location by GPS from various devices to determine meeting location. A user can determine what location information they would like to share and that information be can collected over time).
And selecting a venue on a map or more specifically as recited in the claims (3) generate for display by the first client device, and provide via the communication networks and the collaboration application, a venue preview interface comprising a map comprising markers for each of the venues, wherein the venue preview interface is configured to display one of a plurality of indications of one of the venues overlaid on the map in response to a first selection from the authenticated user of one of the selectable markers for the one of the venues; in response to a second selection from the authenticated user of the one of the indications: selecting a venue (see paragraph 0041, 0048, and 0059, Examiner’s note: teaches providing additional information in response to a user’s selection on a map (see paragraph 0041). Further teaches locations for a venue can be selected from a map (see paragraphs 0048, 0059)),
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Sinkov with the aforementioned teachings from Chang with the motivation of providing one of many
known common ways to determine location from a location aware device (see Chang paragraphs 0007, 0027, 0034, 0079, 0118, 0158,) as well as providing a known way to select a location from multiple locations on a map (see Chang paragraphs 0041, 0048, 0059),when determining a location from a location aware device (see Sinkov paragraphs 0015, 0034,0037, and 0039) and a user selecting a location from a multiple locations (see Sinkov paragraphs 0010, 0032, 0035, and 0039) are both known.
As per claim 9, Sinkov teaches
wherein the processors are further configured to execute the stored programmed instructions to determine from the stored user data one or more roles for the registered users within an organization associated with the authenticated user, wherein the social data comprises another number of the registered users having each of the roles and the portion of the stored user data comprises an identity of the subset of the one or more of the registered users. (see paragraphs 0034-0035 and 0040, Examiner's note: teaches
there are many users in the system beyond just the user's friend list (see paragraph
0040), where a user can select a subset of users to provide a meeting invite too from
the friend list (see paragraphs 0034-0035) and later teaches that the meeting invite may
later be provided to others not originally on that list (se paragraph 050)).
As per claim 12, Sinkov teaches
wherein the processors are further configured to execute the stored programmed instructions to: generate and provide to the first client device for display via the communication networks and the collaboration application a scheduling interface to facilitate submission by the authenticated user of a time window and an identity of the one or more of the registered users; and generate the digital calendar invitations based on the time window. (see paragraphs 0034-0039, Examiner's note: here teaches the meetings include a time element (see paragraphs 0034-0039) that user's are filtered based on that time element (see paragraph 0039) and providing invitations to users based on that information (see paragraph 0036)).
As per claim 13, Sinkov teaches A non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon instructions for location mapping to facilitate collaboration for users sharing common attributes comprising executable code which when executed by one or more processors, causes the processors to: (see
paragraphs 0052-0053, Examiner's note: software running on a computer to
perform functions).
Receiving location from a first client device via one or more communication networks to determine an authenticated user geolocation for an authenticated user via a first global positioning system (GPS) service provided by the first client device; (see paragraphs 0010, 0034, and 0037, Examiner's note: teaches a user logs into the system and is considered a meeting organizer (see paragraph 0010), teaches the system may determine the user's current location automatically (see paragraph 0034) and that the user devices include location aware devices (see paragraph 0037)).
identify based on stored venue data venues that satisfy one or more venue parameters and have a stored venue geolocation within a first radius of the authenticated user geolocation, wherein the venue parameters are received via a collaboration application executing on the first client device; (see paragraphs 0010-0011, 003