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 .
Status of Claims
This is a final rejection in response to claims/remarks filed on 03/11/2026. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are presently amended. Claims 2, 9, 13, and 16 are presently canceled. Claims 1, 3-5, 7-8, 10-12, 14-15, and 17-19 remain pending and are examined herein.
Priority
The effective filing date of the present disclosure is the filing date of provision application #63/367,164, which was filed on 06/28/2022.
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, 3-5, 7-8, 10-12, 14-15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Representative claims 1, 8, and 15 recite:
-a method (claims 1, 3-5, 7)
- A system comprising: a memory; and at least one hardware processor coupled to the memory and comprising instructions that causes the system to perform operations (claims 10-12, 14)
- A non-transitory machine-readable storage medium comprising instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a machine, cause the machine to perform operations (claims 15, 17-19)
Claims 1-7 recite a method, which falls under process. Claims 8-14 recite a system with computing parts which is an apparatus, which falls under machine. Claims 15-20 recite a non-transitory computer readable medium which falls under manufacture. Therefore, all claims 1-20 recite at least one potentially eligible subject matter category and are to be further analyzed under step 2.
Step 2a Prong 1: The representative claims have been outlined so that the italicized portion represents the additional elements and the bolded section represents the abstract idea being analyzed in this step.
Claim 1 - A method comprising:
Claim 8 - A system comprising: a memory; and at least one hardware processor coupled to the memory and comprising instructions that causes the system to perform operations comprising:
Claim 15 - A non-transitory machine-readable storage medium comprising instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a machine, cause the machine to perform operations comprising:
Claims 1, 8, 15 - causing display of a map image at a client device, the map image including a display of a user identifier at a position at a location, the user identifier including a graphical avatar;
Receiving an input that selects the user identifier at the client device;
accessing user profile data associated with a user profile associated with the user identifier responsive to the input, the user profile data comprising location data associated with the user profile;
identifying a sequence of locations associated with the user profile based on the location data from within the user profile data, each location among the sequence of locations comprising a location type;
receiving, from a user associated with the user profile, an input identifying a first location type to exclude from the sequence of locations;
excluding locations corresponding to the first location type from the sequence of locations to identify a portion of the sequence of locations; and
causing display of a presentation of a trail based on the portion of the sequence of locations associated with the user profile within the map image at the client device, the trail terminating at a display of the graphical avatar and
comprising a graphical attribute based on the user profile data from the user profile.
The bolded claims are directed to the process of “presenting a map, drawing the trail according to the historical location information, marking the end of the trail with a user identifier, and marking the trail with a graphical attribute based on the user profile.” In other words, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of “certain methods of organizing human activity,” which includes the subcategory “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teachings, and following rules or instructions.” Please see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C). The social activity/teaching at hand is the presentation of historical location information in the form of a map, which is a fundamental activity for people like hikers or travelers who wish to track and show individuals the paths they took. When considering the steps in bold, the claims merely describe the recordation and display of data in order to manage personal behavior. Instead, the steps generally recite steps of accessing, displaying, and processing data associated with personal behavior or interactions between individuals. The examiner notes, that the alleged user interface features recited are recited so broadly that they are not contained to a particular technological user interface technology, they are merely part of the abstract idea. In other words, there is no specific user interface being claimed in the scope of the claim language, therefore there is no additional element pertaining to a user interface. The steps of “causing a display of a presentation of a trail,” “trail terminating at a display of the graphical avatar,” and “comprising attribute based on the user profile data” are merely nonfunctional descriptive material. MPEP 2111.05 states,
“However, where the claim as a whole is directed to conveying a message or meaning to a human reader independent of the intended computer system, and/or the computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists. For example, a claim to a memory stick containing tables of batting averages, or tracks of recorded music, utilizes the intended computer system merely as a support for the information. Such claims are directed toward conveying meaning to the human reader rather than towards establishing a functional relationship between recorded data and the computer. A claim directed to a computer readable medium storing instructions or executable code that recites an abstract idea must be evaluated for eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101.”
Presenting the location information to a user as a trail, or using a “graphical attribute” merely convey meaning to the human reader rather than establish a functional relationship between recorded data and the computer. Furthermore, the only input step recited is “Receiving an input that selects the user identifier at the client device” which is recited so broadly that it is not limited to a particular user interface or functional action.
Furthermore, even when considering the amended limitations of “each location among the sequence of locations comprising a location type; receiving, from a user associated with the user profile, an input identifying a first location type to exclude from the sequence of locations;
excluding locations corresponding to the first location type from the sequence of locations to identify a portion of the sequence of locations; and causing display of a presentation of a trail based on the portion”, these limitations are recited with such breadth that they are no more than a continuation of the “certain method of organizing human activity” because the steps are still “managing personal behavior or interactions or relationships between people. More specifically, attributing a location type to the various locations is merely a labeling of the interaction data, and associated a permission with the location type from within the user profile data is still “managing interactions or relationships” because these are merely user-set privacy preferences based on the what information the user wants to convey to other users based on their relationships with such users. Therefore, the claims are merely facilitating interactions by managing personal information based on rules inputted by the user. This is still more of the same “managing personal behavior or interactions or relationships” between people including social activities, rules, instructions, and teachings as outlined in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C). Finally, the step of “causing display of a presentation of a trail based on the portion” is merely displaying the filtered data, which is still part of the abstract idea. The examiner notes that MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) includes “filtering content” as an example of managing personal behavior recited in a claim. The examiner notes that the generality in how the limitations for receiving inputs from a user to exclude certain location types, and “excluding locations...” is recited broadly enough to be encapsulate any manner of filtering the locations, without specifying how it should be done. Furthermore, the fact that the preferences are set on a client device does not preclude the claims from reciting “certain methods of organizing human activity.” MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) states, “Finally, the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. It is noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping.” Thus, by presenting the trail, it is merely displaying results of the data collection and filtered content, which is no more than “managing personal behavior or interactions or relationships” between people.
Therefore, when considering the claims in bold, it is clear that the steps merely recite an abstract idea under “certain methods of organizing human activity.”
Step 2a Prong 2: The additional elements are as follows:
(a)-a client device in claims 1, 8, 15
(b)-a memory in claim 8
(c)- at least one hardware processor in claim 8
(d)-a non-transitory computer readable storage medium in claim 15
(e) -processors of a machine in claim 15
The additional elements have not been found to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are merely a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer or on generic computing components. The claim invokes computers merely as a tool to perform the existing process of “presenting a map, presenting a trail according to a portion of the sequence of locations based on permissions associated with the particular location types, marking the end of the trail with a user identifier” on a client device, memory, processor, non-transitory computer readable storage mediums, and machines. 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 does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Even when considering the additional elements individually or as a combination, they still fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, therefore the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Please see MPEP 2106.05(f) for more information regarding mere instructions to apply an exception.
Step 2B: The same additional elements in the Prong 2 analysis have also not been found to be significantly more for the same reasons set forth. Those additional elements are as follows:
(a)-a client device in claims 1, 8, 15
(b)-a memory in claim 8
(c)-at least one hardware processor in claim 8
(d)-a non-transitory computer readable storage medium in claim 15
(e) -processors of a machine in claim 15
The above additional elements have not been found to be significantly more because they are merely a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. The claims do not purport to improve computer capabilities and simply invoke computers merely as a tool. The claims also do not recite improvements to other technology or technical field because they do not recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) for more information about mere instructions to apply an exception. Finally, since no improvements to the computing components have been purported, nor has it been shown that the claims fall under at least one of the additional element criteria under MPEP 2106.05, the additional elements do not provide an integration into a practical application or provide significantly more. Please see MPEP 2106.05(a) for more information. Even when viewing the claims as a whole, nothing in the claim language provides significantly more to the abstract idea.
Dependent Claims 3-5, 7, 10-12, 14, and 17-19 have also been given the full two part analysis individually and in combination with the claims they depend upon in the following analysis.
-Claims 3, 10, and 17 do not add additional step to the abstract idea. These claims simply categorize the location data to include a temporal aspect, which means it is still directed to the same abstract idea of “presenting a map, drawing the trail according to the historical location information, marking the end of the trail with a user identifier.” Furthermore, there are no new additional elements to consider therefore the claim is not integrated into a practical application or found to be significantly more even when viewing the claims as a whole.
-Claims 4, 11, and 18 further limit the abstract idea by defining the distance between locations by a threshold. Furthermore, in combination with the claims they depend upon, it is more of the same abstract idea of “presenting a map, drawing the trail according to the historical location information, marking the end of the trail with an avatar.” Furthermore, there are no new additional elements to consider therefore the claim is not integrated into a practical application or found to be significantly more even when viewing the claims as a whole.
-Claims 5, 12, and 19 add the additional step of the displaying the trail only upon selection of the user indicator. This is still directed to the same abstract of “presenting a map, drawing the trail according to the historical location information, marking the end of the trail with a user identifier” because it still follows the same steps with the caveat that the trails are only presented after indicating an input to present the trails. Furthermore, there are no new additional elements to consider therefore the claim is not integrated into a practical application or found to be significantly more even when viewing the claims as a whole.
-Claims 7, and 14 add the additional steps of checking if the user consents to the location sharing feature before completing the process stated above. Individually, this step is simply a legal interaction, which is a certain method of organizing human activity, therefore it is an abstract idea. The legal interaction at hand is simply ensuring that a user consents to the location features before using it. In combination with the representative claims, it is still directed to the abstract idea of “presenting a map, checking if a user consents, drawing the trail according to the historical location information, marking the end of the trail with a user identifier.” Furthermore, there are no new additional elements to consider therefore the claim is not integrated into a practical application or found to be significantly more even when viewing the claims as a whole.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3, 8, 10, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Life360 (Pub. October 16, 2019, "What are The Purple Dots in Life360" by Arch on TechJunkie, “https://web.archive.org/web/20201020030109/https://www.techjunkie.com/purple-dots-life360/” ) hereinafter Life360,
in view of Cho et al. (US 20150330805 A1) hereinafter Cho,
further in view of Hirabayashi et al. (JP 2018163122 A) hereinafter Hirabayashi.
Regarding Claims 1, 8, 15:
Life360 discloses an app to create your own private social network with your family members, called a circle. You can keep track of their current location, where they’re going, etc. (Life360 [Page 1]) Life 360 teaches:
Claim 1 Preamble - A method comprising:
Claim 1 Body (also representative of claims 8 and 15)- causing display of a map image at a client device, the map image including a display of a user identifier at a position at a location, (Life360 [Page 2] One of the main functions of Life360 is enabling parents to know where their kids are, as well as where they've been. You can check this is by accessing the History of members of your Circle. The purple dots that show up on the map represent where their phone was when it connected to Life360's servers to report their location. Each dot can be tapped on to show when the connection was made. Therefore, you can see exactly when and where they were at various points during the day. It's an easy way of keeping track of them, so you know what everyone has been up to.) See the map image in page 2, which shows a map image at a client device (iPhone), and a display of a user identifier (profile picture or Initial) at a position on a location on the map.
- Receiving an input that selects the user identifier at the client device; (Life360 [Page 2] Every member of your Circle has an individual history on their personal profile. If you tap on their picture or name, it'll show you an overview of their activity for that day.)
- accessing user profile data associated with a user profile associated with the user identifier responsive to the input, the user profile data comprising location data associated with the user profile; (Life360 [Page 2] If you want to get more detailed information, you can tap on the small purple icon at the bottom right of the screen, the icon that looks like a map location pin with a line connecting to a small dot. [Page 3] This will take you to the Day Detail screen. You can use the slider at the bottom of the screen to browse all of the stored location information for that day.)
- identifying a sequence of locations associated with the user profile based on the location data from within the user profile data; and (Life360 [Page 3] As you move the slider, it'll scroll through all of the purple dots on the map, showing you where they were at each update. You can also press the left or right buttons to the top of the screen to move to the previous or next day's history.
[“How Far Back Does it Go”, Page 3] The free version of Life360 will only show you the last two days' worth of History. Fine for recent events, but it might not be so good if you want to talk to your kids about what happened last week. The paid version will show you the last thirty days' worth of location tracking information. Life360 doesn't store any history information after thirty days. Therefore, if you want to keep a record of past events falling outside of this time frame, your best bet is to take a screenshot of it.) See also the image in page 3 showing the sequency of locations associated with the user profile. Life360 “will show you the last thirty days’ worth of location tracking information” satisfies “based on the location data from within the user profile data.”
- causing display of a presentation of a trail based on the sequence of locations associated with the user profile within the map image at the client device, (Life360 [See the image on page 3]) The image on page 3 shows a map with a sequence of location markers labeled with temporal data, and a trail between these location points indicating the sequence of locations associated with the user profile.
However, Life360 fails to teach:
- Claim 8 Preamble - A system comprising :a memory; and at least one hardware processor coupled to the memory and comprising instructions that causes the system to perform operations comprising:
Claim 15 Preamble - A non-transitory machine-readable storage medium comprising instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a machine, cause the machine to perform operations comprising:
-receiving, from a user associated with the user profile, an input identifying a first location type to exclude from the sequence of locations;
-excluding locations corresponding to the first location type from the sequence of locations to identify a portion of the sequence of locations; and
- causing display of a presentation of a trail based on the portion of the sequence of locations
- the user identifier including a graphical avatar;
- trail terminating at a display of the graphical avatar.
- comprising a graphical attribute based on the user profile data from the user profile.
Alternatively, Cho discloses a system for tracking the location of a user and obtaining information corresponding to an initial route of a user based on the tracked location of a user and detect a predicted route of the user. Cho teaches:
- Claim 8 Preamble - A system comprising :a memory; and at least one hardware processor coupled to the memory and comprising instructions that causes the system to perform operations comprising:(Cho [0030] According to an aspect of another exemplary embodiment, there is provided a computing device including: a location tracker configured to track a location of the computing device; a memory configured to store a location history of the computing device according to the tracked locations; a controller configured to determine an initial route of the computing device by comparing a current location of the computing device to a previous location of the computing device, and determine a predicted route of the computing device based on the initial route and the location history of the computing device. [0460] The controller 4320 may be referred to as a processor that controls an operation of the computing device 100.)
Claim 15 Preamble - A non-transitory machine-readable storage medium comprising instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a machine, cause the machine to perform operations comprising:(Cho [0477] The memory 4340 may include at least one type of storage medium selected from a flash memory type, a hard disk type, a multimedia card micro type, a card type memory (e.g., SD or XD memory), a random access memory (RAM), a static random access memory (RAM), a read-only memory (ROM), an electrically erasable programmable read-only memory (EEPROM), a programmable read-only memory (PROM), a magnetic memory, a magnetic disk, and/or an optical disk.)
- the user identifier including a graphical avatar; (Cho [0303] Referring to the screen 2110 of FIG. 21, a starting point 2111, a current point 2112, and an initial route 2113 of the user of the another computing device 2000, and the starting point 101, the current point 102, and the initial route 103 of the user of the computing device 100 are provided together. [0311] For example, an image or a text indicating users may be displayed at the current points 101 and 2112. An image indicating a user may be a face image or an Avatar representing the user, but is not limited thereto. A text indicating a user may include, for example, identification information of the user (e.g., name of the user), but is not limited thereto. ) Cho’s current point 102, is where the initial route terminates as seen on the left of fig. 1 and fig. 21. In [0311] Cho teaches that an “Avatar” representing the user can be displayed at the current points, therefore the limitation has been taught.
- trail terminating at a display of the graphical avatar.(See Cho [0303] above )Cho’s current point 102, is where the initial route terminates as seen on the left of fig. 1 and fig. 21. In [0311] Cho teaches that an “Avatar” representing the user can be displayed at the current points, therefore the limitation has been taught.
- comprising a graphical attribute based on the user profile data from the user profile. (Cho [0311] While the information about a route of the user of the computing device 100 and the information about a route of the user of the other computing device 2000 may be provided in different colors, a method of distinguishing the routes of the two users is not limited thereto. For example, an image or a text indicating users may be displayed at the current points 101 and 2112. An image indicating a user may be a face image or an Avatar representing the user, but is not limited thereto. A text indicating a user may include, for example, identification information of the user (e.g., name of the user), but is not limited thereto. [0157] solid line… dotted line… [0189] The profile or model of a user's location, generated by machine learning, may be expressed as cumulative route information (or a cumulative route profile or model) or past route information (or a past route profile or model).) In the present disclosure, paragraph [0047] provides examples of graphical attributes of a trail including “color as well as a line-type associated with the trail (i.e., dotted, dashed solid). Cho teaches these graphical attributes in the excerpt above. Since these attributes are based on distinguishing different users, then the graphical attribute is based on the user profile data from the user profile(their identification).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Life360 by specifying the structural components operating the system and adding a graphical user avatar at the end of the trail to indicate the current location of the person of interest, and using graphical attributes to mark the trail as taught by Cho. This combination would predictably yield the claimed limitations above because substituting Life360’s user identifier icon with a graphical avatar is a simple substitution, and substituting the lines with graphical attributes as taught by Life360 is also a simple substitution. One would have been motivated to make this combination as it would provide the benefit of assisting a user to quickly and easily distinguish between people or any other information regarding the type of trail. (Cho [0311])
However, neither Life360 nor Cho teach or suggest:
-receiving, from a user associated with the user profile, an input identifying a first location type to exclude from the sequence of locations;
-excluding locations corresponding to the first location type from the sequence of locations to identify a portion of the sequence of locations; and
- causing display of a presentation of a trail based on the portion of the sequence of locations
Alternatively, Hirabayashi discloses a location history tracking information system that prevents personal identifiable information from being presented to others, by recording a location history, determining if a predetermined condition is met, and presents only history that does not allow personal addresses to be identified. Hirabayashi teaches:
-receiving, from a user associated with the user profile, an input identifying a first location type to exclude from the sequence of locations;(Hirabayashi [Description [0033] Map databases are used for displaying maps, searching for destinations, and finding routes. The map database contains information on multiple locations. Furthermore, location information may include type information
indicating the type of location, depending on the type of location it corresponds to. Examples of types of places include restaurants, department stores, convenience stores, train stations, apartment buildings, and parks. Furthermore, for each of the predetermined locations, name information indicating the name of that location may also be included...The predetermined locations are those where the navigation device 10 can display their names in the manner described above. The predetermined types of locations include, for example, restaurants, department stores, convenience stores, train stations, apartments, parks, etc., as mentioned above, and are not personal addresses. Since apartment buildings and condominiums themselves house multiple households, they do not
necessarily have to be considered an individual's address. [0059] As shown in Figure 4(b), the control unit 11 reads all destination arrival history from the storage unit 12 (step S11). Next, the control unit 11 determines whether or not a type of location has been specified (step S12). At this point, if the control unit 11 determines that no type of location has been specified (step S12: NO), it proceeds to step S14. On the other hand, if the control unit 11 determines that there is a specification for the type of location (step S12: YES), it proceeds to
step S13.)
-excluding locations corresponding to the first location type from the sequence of locations to identify a portion of the sequence of locations; and(Hirabayashi Description [0060] In step S13, the control unit 11 filters the destination arrival history by the specified type. Specifically, the control unit 11 extracts only the destination arrival history entries from the read destination arrival history entries that include type information indicating the specified type. The control unit 11 proceeds to step S14. [0044] The control unit 11 displays the history stored in the memory unit 12 via the touch panel 14.
Here, after a predetermined condition is met, the control unit 11 displays only the history stored in the storage unit 12 up to the point when the predetermined condition was met, in which the individual's address cannot be identified, via the touch panel 14. The control unit 11 may display all history stored in the storage unit 12 after a predetermined condition has been met, regardless of whether or not the individual's address can be identified, until the predetermined condition is met again. [0045] These predetermined conditions are designed to restrict the presentation of the history
stored in the storage unit 12, so that a history that could identify an individual's address is not
presented to others. For example, the control unit 11 may determine whether or not a predetermined condition has been met. [0047] A history that does not allow for the identification of an individual's address may, for example, be a history of a location where the corresponding location information includes name information. In other words, the control unit 11 may only display the history of locations for which the navigation device 10 has predetermined the ability to display their names. Location information corresponding to an individual's address does not include name information. In some cases, locations that are not personal addresses may have corresponding location information that does not include name information. It's fine if the history related to such places is no longer presented.) In Hirabayashi, the system can both exclude any addresses with personal individual’s addresses, which satisfies the limitation because it excludes location corresponding to a particular location type (apartment buildings, homes etc). Additionally, a user can input to filter the arrival history by a specific location type, which also satisfies the limitation because it excludes locations that don’t correspond to the type.
- causing display of a presentation of a trail based on the portion of the sequence of locations (Hirabayashi [Description [0049] For example, the control unit 11 may display a list of history in response to user operations on the touch panel 14. For example, the name of the identified location (only if name information is included), location information, address, identified date and time, etc., may be displayed on the touch panel 14 for each history entry. In this case, the control unit 11 may only display history of the type specified by the user. The user selects one of the history entries from the displayed history by operating the touch panel 14. This allows users to set a location corresponding to their selected history as their destination. [0041] In the case of a passage
history, the control unit 11 identifies the movement path of the vehicle 5 based on the information from the sensor unit 13. The control unit 11 stores in the storage unit 12 the history of the vehicle's passage through a predetermined type of location or near such a location, for example, when the vehicle 5 passes through or near such a location, or when the vehicle 5 stops moving for a predetermined time or longer at or near a certain location.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to modify Life360 and Cho by filtering/excluding particular location types from public location sharing history as taught by Hirabayashi. By performing this combination, one can easily implement Hirabayashi’s teachings by recording the location types of each of the location in Life360, and enabling a filtering feature based on the type of the location, excluding particular location types from display. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by Hirabayashi’s teachings as it enables the ability to share history across multiple users, while preventing personally identifiable information from being presented to others. (Hirabayashi [0007] This application has been made in view of the above points, and one example of its objective is to provide a navigation device, server device, presentation method, presentation program, and recording medium that enable the use of history across multiple users while preventing personally identifiable information from being presented to others.)
Regarding Claims 3, 10, 17:
The combination of Life360, Cho, and Hirabayashi teach or suggest the method of claim 1, the system of claim 8, and the non-transitory machine-readable storage medium of claim 15:
Furthermore, Life360 teaches:
- wherein the location data includes temporal data, and the identifying the sequence of locations associated with the user profile is based on the location data and the temporal data. (Life 360 [Image on Page 3] The image on page 3 shows the time of one of the locations 5:56 PM, which is an example of temporal data.) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that the sequence of locations in the image is based on the location data and temporal data, because “each of the purple dots on the map shows you where they were at each update.” (Life360 [Page 3])
Claims 4, 11, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Life360 (Pub. October 16, 2019, "What are The Purple Dots in Life360" by Arch on TechJunkie, “https://web.archive.org/web/20201020030109/https://www.techjunkie.com/purple-dots-life360/”)
in view of Cho (US 20150330805 A1),
further in view of Hirabayashi et al. (JP 2018163122 A).
further in view of Zhang et al.(US 20170046802 A1) hereinafter Zhang.
Regarding Claims 4, 11, 18:
The combination of Life360, Cho, and Hirabayashi teach or suggest the method of claim 1, the system of claim 8, and the non-transitory machine-readable storage medium of claim 15:
Furthermore, Life360 teaches:
- wherein the sequence of locations comprise at least a first location and a second location,(Life360 [Image on Page 3] shows a sequences of locations with more than one location, so any of the locations can be a first and second location.)
However, Life360, Cho, and Hirabayashi fail to teach or suggest:
- and the identifying the sequence of locations associated with the user profile further comprises: identifying the first location based on the location data; determining that the second location is located beyond a threshold distance from the first location; and identifying the second location as a location among the sequence of locations based on the second location being located beyond the threshold distance from the first location.
Alternatively, Zhang is directed to a social network system that includes a feature of providing live travel recommendations based on the historical travel information of friends on the platform which teaches:
- wherein the sequence of locations comprise at least a first location and a second location, and the identifying the sequence of locations associated with the user profile further comprises: identifying the first location based on the location data; determining that the second location is located beyond a threshold distance from the first location; (Zhang [0046] In particular embodiments, the analyzing the current geo-location information of the first user may include generating a location history associated with the first user, determining a plurality of hotspots associated with the first user based on the location history, and determining that a current geographic location of the first user is more than a threshold distance from one or more of the plurality of hotspots. As an example and not by way of limitation, the social-networking system 160 may determine whether the current location of the first user corresponds to a determined “hotspot” for the first user. As an example and not by way of limitation, the first user’s hotspots may include her residence, her school, her place of work, and other places the user may be frequently located at. If the first user is at or nearby (e.g., within a threshold distance) to a hotspot, the social-networking system 160 may determine that the user is within her normal routine, and thus unlikely to be traveling (e.g., vacationing). On the other hand, if the first user is located at a relatively unusual location (e.g., at a geographic location that is more than the threshold distance from a hotspot), the social-networking system 160 may determine that the first user is outside her normal routine, and thus likely to be traveling.) In the citation above, Zhang’s system chooses a first location “hotspot,” and compares it to a second location, “the current location” from a series of locations, “location history.” The system then determines that the current location is a threshold hold distance away from the hotspot.
- and identifying the second location as a location among the sequence of locations based on the second location being located beyond the threshold distance from the first location.(Zhang[0066] In particular embodiments, the social-networking system 160 may collect the information for the user’s travels and then, following the termination of the trip, provide the user with a user-editable summary of the route traveled and points of interest visited (e.g., a travel log). For example, U.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/466,269, which is incorporated herein by reference, describes generating “reaction cards” in response to a post, a check-in at a location, or some other type of user action. As an example and not by way of reference, the social-networking system 160 may use an analogous process to generate a “story” timeline with information from the trip in which the user can fill in details based on the structure provided by the social-networking system 160 (e.g., based on information collected during the user’s travels) and upload this information to the social-networking system 160 (e.g., to share with friends). Although this disclosure describes generating a travel log in a particular manner, this disclosure contemplates generating a travel log in any suitable manner.) Once the system determines that a user is likely travelling, the new locations outside the threshold of the hotspots are recording within the travel log described above, thus teaching the entire limitation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the combination of Life360, Cho and Hirabayashi’s location sharing system, with Zhang’s threshold measuring feature, which enables the system to ensure that a certain threshold distance is met before logging particular events. This would provide the benefit of creating a travel recommendation model, ensuring that the points of interests are actual points of interest, and not just locations frequented for purposes such as work. (Zhang [Abstract])
Claims 5, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Life360 (Pub. October 16, 2019, "What are The Purple Dots in Life360" by Arch on TechJunkie, “https://web.archive.org/web/20201020030109/https://www.techjunkie.com/purple-dots-life360/”)
in view of Cho (US 20150330805 A1) ,
further in view of Hirabayashi et al. (JP 2018163122 A),
further in view of Chen et al. (US 20190098098 A1) hereinafter Chen.
Regarding Claims 5, 12, 19:
The combination of Life360, Cho, and Hirabayashi teach or suggest the method of claim 1, the system of claim 8, and the non-transitory machine-readable storage medium of claim 15:
Furthermore, Life360 teaches:
-wherein the causing display of the map image further comprises: causing display of the map image that depicts the location, the map image including the display of the user identifier; (Life 360 [Page 2] See the map on map 2 that displays the user identifier without the trail.)
- receiving an input that selects the user identifier from within the map image; and (Life 360 How [“Do You Find a Circle Member's History?’ Page 2] Every member of your Circle has an individual history on their personal profile. If you tap on their picture or name, it'll show you an overview of their activity for that day.)
- causing display of the presentation of the trail indicating the sequence of locations associated with the user profile (Life360 [Page 3] This will take you to the Day Detail screen. You can use the slider at the bottom of the screen to browse all of the stored location information for that day. As you move the slider, it'll scroll through all of the purple dots on the map, showing you where they were at each update. You can also press the left or right buttons to the top of the screen to move to the previous or next day's history.) See also the image on page 3
However, Life360 fails to teach that the causing display of the presentation of the trail is:
- responsive to the input that selects the user identifier from within the map image. (Life 360 teaches that the display of the trail is in response selecting the user identifier and then selecting the small purple icon at the bottom right of the screen in Page 2 “If you want to get more detailed information, you can tap on the small purple icon at the bottom right of the screen, the icon that looks like a map location pin with a line connecting to a small dot.” This results in the image on page 3 showing the display of the presentation of the trail.)
Furthermore, Cho and Hirabayashi also fails to remedy this deficiency above (Cho does not teach or suggest the above.)
Alternatively, Chen is directed to a method and server system for location sharing which teaches:
- causing display of the presentation of location associated with the user profile responsive to the input that selects the user identifier from within the map image. (Chen [0111] In response to receiving selection input from a respective user of the one or more second users for selecting one of the respective icons corresponding to the first user and the one or more second users, the server system adjusts (624) the map interface displayed on at least the second device associated with the respective user providing the selection input, as shown in FIGS. 5D-5F. In some embodiments, adjusting the map interface includes (626) one of (1) re-centering the map interface over a user location of the user corresponding to the selected icon, (2) zooming out the map interface to include the user location of the user corresponding to the selected icon on the map interface, and (3) zooming into the map interface around the user location of the user corresponding to the selected icon on the map interface. The icons corresponding to the first user and the one or more second users may be displayed on a top banner above the map on the display (in this case, these icons are distinct from the icons representing the user locations/direction on the map), or may be displayed on the map corresponding to their locations.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the combination the combination of Life360, Cho and Hirabayashi’s location sharing system with Chen’s system by adding the ability to select a particular user to view their location data. By displaying the trails in Life360 in response to receiving selection input from a user as taught in Chen, one would arrive at the predictable outcome of “causing display of presentation of the trail...”responsive to the input that selects the user identifier from within the map image. This is a simple substitution because Life360 already has an icon which displays the trails in response to clicking the purple icon, thus the substitution effectively substitutes that purple icon in Life360 with the selection input of the respective user in Chen. This would provide the benefit of making the system more interactive and be better integrated into the social platform as a whole. (Chen [0094])
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Life360 (Pub. October 16, 2019, "What are The Purple Dots in Life360" by Arch on TechJunkie, “https://web.archive.org/web/20201020030109/https://www.techjunkie.com/purple-dots-life360/”)
in view of Cho et al. (US 20150330805 A1),
further in view of Hirabayashi et al. (JP 2018163122 A),
further in view of Wansley (US 20150172327 A1 ) hereinafter Wansley.
Regarding Claims 7, 14:
Life360 in view of Cho teaches the method of claim 1, the system of claim 8, and the non-transitory machine-readable storage medium of claim 15:
However, neither Life360, Cho, and Hirabayashi teach or suggest:
-wherein the accessing the user profile data associated with the user profile further comprises: determining that the user profile has enabled a location sharing feature based on the user profile data;
-and identifying the sequence of location associated with the user profile responsive to the determining that the user profile has enabled the location sharing feature.
Furthermore, Wansley teaches:
-wherein the accessing the user profile data associated with the user profile further comprises: determining that the user profile has enabled a location sharing feature based on the user profile data; (Wansley[0022] First user 102 may then provide consent to share one or more of those places of interest with other second users 104 in the social network by selection of those places of interest at user interface 107.[0044] For example, a social network hosted by servers 601 may include a social check-in application that allows users of the social network to "check in" to a physical place using computing device 603, and share their location with their friends or contacts. Device 603 may be configured with software integrated with the social network, that is configured to perform a check-in by associating one or more specific places of interest (for example, places, businesses or recreational areas, or the like) with a user's current geographic location. The software may use a GPS device integrated into the computing device to find the user's current location, and then present to the user for selection a list of places of interest based on the current location.) Wansley feature of allowing users to check in and share their location with friends or contacts teaches the “location sharing feature” of the present disclosure.
-and identifying the sequence of location associated with the user profile responsive to the determining that the user profile has enabled the location sharing feature. (Wansley[0022] On receiving from user 101 one or more selected places of interest, a representation of the user and the selected (previously visited) places of interest may be provided for display in the social network.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combination of Life360, Cho and Hirabayashi by adding the features of determining the permissions before allowing the viewing of the locations as taught by Wansley. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to perform this combination as it would increase the security of the system. (Wansley [0016][0022][0044])
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/11/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the following reasons.
Regarding the applicant’s assertions over 35 U.S.C. 101, the applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the following reasons. The applicant asserts that the characterization of the claims as “managing personal behavior or interactions or relationships between people” does not account for the amended claim limitation , particularly “(1) identifying a sequence of locations where each location comprises a location type, (2) receiving, from a user associated with the user profile, an input identifying a first location type to exclude from the sequence of locations, (3) excluding locations corresponding to the first location type from the sequence of locations to identify a portion of the sequence of locations, and (4) causing display of a presentation of a trail based on the portion of the sequence of locations at the client device, the trail terminating at a display of the graphical avatar and comprising a graphical attribute based on the user profile data.” However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant’s argument that the operations defined how the system processes location data and controls what is rendered on the map display at the client device, “is a recitation of how the system receives a user input, processes location data in response to that input, and generates a modified display output,” is not persuasive. Merely receiving input through a device, performing data processing (which falls within certain methods of organizing human activity), then displaying the results of the processing, does not preclude the claims from reciting an abstract idea. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) states, “Finally, the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. It is noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping.” Thus, by presenting the trail, it is merely displaying results of the data collection and filtered content, which is still no more than “managing personal behavior or interactions or relationships” between people.
Regarding the “filtering content” argument, the applicant argues that the claims recite a defined sequence of operations, specifying a location type that drives the exclusion of locations from the sequence, and the resulting portion is then used to generate a trail display. However, this is not persuasive, because even though the particular data being operated on is specified, along with the input, processing step, and output, it is still no more than a recitation of “filtering content” within the context of a “certain method of organizing human activity.” Specifying each step of filtering, is still filtering, even when the steps are separated. Therefore, the arguments that the steps recite a “defined data processing and display generation sequence” are not persuasive because even though the steps are individually recited, the claims are analyzed given their broadest reasonable interpretation, which in this case, still recites “certain methods of organizing human activity,” and “data filtering.”
Regarding the applicant’s arguments over integration into a practical application, the applicant asserts that the claims do not recite a generic invocation of a computer to perform an abstract concept, however, even when considering each of the individual steps, nothing in the claims meaningfully limits the claim language such that it is more than “apply it” or mere instructions to perform the abstract idea on a generic computer. Particularly, the applicant submits that the claims are analogous to Example 37, which was previously argued in the previous office action. However, example 37 provided an improvement over prior art systems (particularly graphical user interfaces). However, nothing in the present claims reflects an improvement over prior art systems, particularly within the field of graphical user interface technology, as it merely displays a subset of location information based on data filtering. The applicant’s argument that the nature of the abstract idea grouping does not determine whether the additional elements integrate that idea into a practical application at Prong 2 is neither relevant nor persuasive, firstly because the nature of the abstract idea grouping is considering, “A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner than imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.” Furthermore, other sections of the MPEP indicate that the judicial exception category is relevant in determining integration into a practical application. For example in MPEP 2106.05(a), the analysis considers whether an entire scope of a claim can be performed mentally, when determining whether claims can be said to improve computer technology. MPEP 2106.05(a), states “It is important to note that in order for a method claim to improve computer functionality, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim must be limited to computer implementation. That is, a claim whose entire scope can be performed mentally, cannot be said to improve computer technology. Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 120 USPQ2d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (a method of translating a logic circuit into a hardware component description of a logic circuit was found to be ineligible because the method did not employ a computer and a skilled artisan could perform all the steps mentally).” Therefore, while the category of abstract idea does not control the entire Prong 2 analysis, it is an important consideration, especially when Example 37 only recites an abstract idea under “mental processes,” which can be overcome by showing that the claims are limited to computer implementation and cannot be performed mentally. Whereas, the present claims which recite “certain methods of organizing human activity,” cannot simply be overcome by introducing additional elements that preclude the abstract idea from being performed in the human mind. Nonetheless, the present claims still fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because unlike Example 37, it does not provide an improved user interface for electronic devices, because it merely uses devices in their ordinary capacity to perform the abstract idea steps. Thus, even when considering that the claims “define a particular processing and display sequence that controls what location data is rendered on the map interface and how it is rendered,” there is still no clear improvement to computer technology, or technical field purported.
The argument of nonfunctional descriptive material does not change the abstract idea analysis. For clarity of the record, the entirety of the claim is not directed to “nonfunctional descriptive material,” however, the display of a graphical avatar at the end of a trail, which serves no purpose other than conveying meaning to the human reader, is non-functional. The examiner admits that the steps of “receiving an input, processing location data by excluding locations of a specified type, and causing display of a trail based on the processed data” recites functional relationships, however, it is still not considered more than “apply it” or mere instructions to perform the abstract idea on a generic computer.
Regarding applicant’s arguments over rejections of claims under 103, the examiner has considered each and every remark made by the applicant but none of the arguments are persuasive for the following reasons. Firstly, arguments based on Life360, Cho, and Tasdemiroglu’s failure to teach or suggest the amended limitations are moot in view of the updated rejection which now includes Hirabayashi. The combination of Life360, Cho, and Hirabayashi has been shown to teach or suggest, as an obvious combination, each and every limitation in independent claims 1, 8 and 15. Therefore, all of the arguments under subtitles “Tasdemiroglu does not teach...”, are moot in view of Hirabayashi, which has been shown to teach the
-receiving, from a user associated with the user profile, an input identifying a first location type to exclude from the sequence of locations;
-excluding locations corresponding to the first location type from the sequence of locations to identify a portion of the sequence of locations; and
- causing display of a presentation of a trail based on the portion of the sequence of locations
The amended limitations require a user-initiated, per-location-type exclusion directed at the user’s own location history sequence, which is absent from Life360, and Cho, but is remedied by Hirabayashi, and yielded in an obvious combination. While other references, Zhang, Chen, and Wansley, also fail to remedy such deficiency, the combination which now includes Hirabayashi, satisfies the limitation. In this case, the combination of reference now includes at least Life360, Cho and Hirabayashi, which in an obvious combination, teach each and every limitation of the amended claims 1, 8, and 15. Furthermore, the dependent claims have also been taught, therefore all of the claims remain rejected under 103.
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 NICO LAUREN PADUA whose telephone number is (703)756-1978. The examiner can normally be reached Mon to Fri: 8:30 to 5:00pm.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at (571) 270-3445. 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.
/NICO L PADUA/Junior Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/JESSICA LEMIEUX/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights