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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement submitted on 12/7/22 has been considered by the examiner (see attached PTO-1449 form).
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.
Claim 28-30 and 33-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim recites determining first, second, third direction indicators. The limitation of determining the first, second and third indicators, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by a First FPD” (hereinafter, processor), nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “the FPD/processor” language, “determining a first indicator” in the context of this claim encompasses the user drawing a first line from a first point representing a first FPD to a fourth point representing a communication device. Similarly, “determining a second indicator” in the context of this claim encompasses the user drawing a second line from a first point representing a first FPD to a second point representing a second FPD”.
Similarly, “determining a third indicator” in the context of this claim encompasses the user drawing a second third line from a first point representing a first FPD to a third point representing a third FPD”.
The limitation, “the first FPD determining, based on the first direction indicator and the second direction indicator, whether or not the communication device is within the spanning area”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “by a processor” language, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user analyzing whether the communication device is in between the first or second line.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – using a processor to perform all the determining steps. The processor in all the steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of ranking information based on a determined amount of use) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform all the determining steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Upon proper overcoming of the 101 rejections as discussed above, claims 28-35 would be allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The closest prior art of record, Thoresen (US 20190182627), White (US 12349098 and Parkvall (US 20170331577).
Thoresen teaches geofencing, wherein a geofenced area is defined by a set of N fence-pole devices (FPDs), where N is greater than or equal to 3 such that the set of N FPDs comprises at least a first FPD a second FPD and a third FPD; the first FPD determining a first direction indicator indicating a first direction from the first FPD to a communication device; determining that either: i) the communication device is within the spanning area or ii) the communication device is not within the spanning area.
White teaches a group of Pole Fence Devices (beacons) in a geofence and detect a change of location a communication device.
Parkvall teaches refined beam and geo-fence.
However, the combination of Thoresen, White and Parkvall fail to teach all of the features above in combination with the following features of:
the first FPD determining a second direction indicator indicating a second direction from the first FPD to the second FPD, wherein the second direction indicator is used to define a spanning area for the first FPD; the first FPD determining, based on the first direction indicator and the second direction indicator, whether or not the communication device is within the spanning area; the first FPD determining a third direction indicator indicating a direction from the first FPD to the third FPD, wherein the step of the first FPD determining, based on the first direction indicator, whether or not the communication device is within the spanning area comprises the first FPD determining whether the first direction is between: i) the direction from the first FPD to the second FPD and ii) the direction from the first FPD to the third FPD.
Thus the cited prior arts alone or in combination does not fairly suggest or disclose all of the claimed combination of features.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUNG L LAM whose telephone number is (571)272-6497. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday -Thursday 9-5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lester Kincaid can be reached on 571-272-7922. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Dung Lam/
Examiner, Art Unit 2617
/MATTHEW D. ANDERSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2646