DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 3, and 18-20 are amended. Claim 15 is cancelled. Claims 1-14 and 16-20 are pending in the application.
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 .
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.
Examiner’s Notes
The Examiner cites particular sections in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant(s). Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant(s) fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Response to Amendment
Amendments to the abstract and paragraph [0001] are fully considered and are satisfactory to overcome the objections directed to the specification in the previous Office Action.
Amendments to claim 3 are fully considered and are satisfactory to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) directed to claims 3-8 in the previous Office Action.
Amendments to claims 18 and 19 are fully considered and are satisfactory to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101 directed to claims 18-19 in the previous Office Action.
Priority
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 17/068,611, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
Specifically, Application No. 17/068,611 does not provide support for the limitations “defining, by the server and based on the geolocation information, geolocation boundaries and one or more workflows to associate with the contextual zone” and “executing, by the server, the one or more workflows while the present location of the mobile device is within the geolocation boundaries” recited in claim 1, and/or the similar limitations recited in claims 18 and 20.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 19: “media of claim 19” (line 2) should have been –media of claim 18--.
Appropriate corrections are required. Applicant is advised to review the entire claims for further needed corrections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: receiving, from the control application an indication that the contextual zone is invalid; for example as described in paragraphs [00174], [00177] and recited in claim 13.
More specifically, claim 1 is amended to incorporate the limitations recited in claim 15 (i.e. “sending, to the control application, an approval or a denial to add the contextual zone to a list of invalid contextual zones”) without incorporating the limitations recited in claim 13 (i.e. “receiving, from the control application an indication that the contextual zone is invalid”) upon which claim 15 used to depend. Without these features recited in claim 13, claim 1 presents a gap between the “receiving”, “defining”, “executing” steps and the “sending” step, such that the control application randomly receives an approval or a denial to add the contextual zone to a list of invalid contextual zones without any relation to the previously recited steps.
As such, claim 1 is rejected as being incomplete for omitting essential steps.
Claims 2-12, 16, and 17 inherit the features of claim 1 and are rejected accordingly.
Claim 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: instructions to cause the server to receive, from the control application, an indication that the contextual zone is invalid; for example as described in paragraphs [00174], [00177]. That is, in view of the abovementioned reasons with respect to claim 1, claim 18 omits essential elements amounting to a gap between the instructions that cause the server to “receive”, “define”, “execute” and the instructions that cause the server to “send”.
Claim 19 inherits the features of claim 18 and is rejected accordingly.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: sending, by the control application, an indication that the contextual zone is invalid; for example as described in paragraphs [00174], [00177]. That is, in view of the abovementioned reasons with respect to claim 1, claim 20 also omits essential steps amounting to a gap between the method steps.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In detail:
(i) Regarding Applicant’s arguments with respect to the allowable subject matter identified in the previous Office Action (Remarks, page 8), note that the allowable subject matter identified therewith is not only the limitations recited in claim 15 but also “all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims”. Without incorporating the limitations recited in claim 13 (upon which claim 15 used to depend), claim 1 omits essential method steps and is rejected accordingly. For more details, please see the Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) section above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
CONCLUSION
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Huang (US 2011/0177831 A1) discloses a mobile device that sends locations of access points to track its movement and requests an update of a location database that is hosted on mobile device (see paragraphs 28, 85).
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Umut Onat whose telephone number is (571)270-1735. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9:00-7:30.
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, Kevin L Young can be reached at (571) 270-3180. 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.
/UMUT ONAT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2194
Prosecution Insights