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
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/31/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment filed on 1/31/2026 have been entered and fully considered. Claims 1, 15 and 21 are amended, claims 3, 4 and 8-14 are canceled, and claims 1, 2, 5-7 and 15-29 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 2, 5-7 and 15-29 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s reserving comments regarding the propriety of the obviousness-type double patenting rejection, and respectfully requests that this rejection be held in abeyance until at least one claim is found to be allowable.
Examiner will maintain the double patenting rejections until further agreement.
Regarding claims 1, 2, 5-7 and 15-29 under 35 U.S.C. 101 statutory subject matter rejection, Applicant argues that amended independent claims 1, 15 and 21 would render the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection moot. As amended, independent claims 1, 15 and 21 recite operations involve maintaining and updating stored spatial geometry governing system behavior and therefore cannot practically be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper, and the claims do not merely recite analysis of data and is fundamentally different from collecting, comparing, or reporting data. The amended claims use spatial geometry in a non-conventional manner to improve the functioning of proximity-based messaging system by dynamically recalculating geographic boundaries that govern messaging-group membership. Accordingly, the amended claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application implemented by a communication server and recite patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101, and respectfully request withdraw of the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. These limitations, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind or by a human. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same). In this particular application, a manager could see an employee walking towards the office, and the manager includes the employee in the group meeting and the employee can sit in a chair arranged in rows or in any particular shape. The spatial boundary defining membership (employees in the group meeting) can be the rows of seats that employees sit in. When employee leaves the meeting or when additional employees join the meeting and/or when specified number of employees changes, they leave the chair or sit in new row of chairs, then the active area is updated based on number of rows of chairs sat in. The mere nominal recitation that the various steps are performed by a communication server, user device, a messaging engine, and data structure does not take the limitations out of the mental processing group. Further, MPEP states that, see specifically 2106.05(f) Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial except in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than 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. As explained by the Supreme Court that in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do “more than simply” stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’”. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S.C. 208,221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S.C. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (warning against a § 101 analysis that turns on “the draftman’s art”). Further while evaluating step 2A if claim recite any additional elements beyond the judicial exception and reviewing MPEP 2106.05(f) i.e., mere instruction to apply an exception. It is clearly recited that the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it”. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743044 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, claiming a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1356, 119 USPQ2d at 1743. Having said that current limitation recites the additional elements such as automatically updating by the communication server, a spatial boundary defining membership of the proximity-based messaging group when: each of a specified number of user devices within the active area moves in or out of the active area; and the specified number of user devices changes, wherein the spatial boundary is maintained in a data structure. These limitations do not recite how the solution to the problem is accomplished. If the additional elements take alone or in combination fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claim is directed to judicial exception and analysis proceeds to step 2B. The claims as whole is analyzed and does not recite additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract recites “and the like” at the end. Examiner suggest delete this phrase. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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, 2, 5-7 and 15-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims are directed to abstract idea such as an idea standing alone such as an instantiated concept, pan or scheme, as well as a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”, for example determine based on a direction of travel and location of the user device, whether the user device is traveling towards an active area, responsive to determining that the user device is traveling towards the active area, adding the user device to the proximity-based messaging group; and automatically updating a spatial boundary defining membership of the proximity-based messaging group when number of user devices within the active area moves in or out, and when the specified number of user device changes. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the steps of the claimed invention can be done mentally and no additional features in the claims would preclude them from being performed as such.
CLAIM ANALYSIS
STEP 1: YES. The claims meet the statutory categories.
Claims 1, 2, 5-7 fall within a statutory category of process.
Claims 15-20 fall within a statutory category of machine.
Claims 21-29 fall within a statutory category of manufacture.
STEP 2A: PRONG ONE YES. The claims are directed to a judicial exception.
Claims 1, 2, 5-7 and 15-29 recite a judicial exception being directed to an abstract idea.
As a representative example, take Claim 1:
1. A method for providing proximity-based messaging, the method comprising:
determining, by a communication server, based on a direction of travel of a user device and a location of the user device, whether the user device is traveling toward an active area for a proximity-based messaging group managed by a messaging engine of the communication server; and
responsive to determining that the user device is traveling towards the active area, adding, by the communication server, the user device to the proximity-based messaging group; and
automatically updating, by the communication server, a spatial boundary defining membership of the proximity-based messaging group when:
each of a specified number of user devices within the active area moves in or out of the active area; and
the specified number of user devices changes, wherein the spatial boundary is maintained in a data structure.
(Additional elements appearing in bold analyzed in Steps 2A,2B below)
In plain language, the claim steps above in the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) comprise determine whether the user device is traveling towards an active area based on direction of travel and current location of the user device, add the user device to a proximity-based messaging group, and automatically update a spatial boundary defining membership of the proximity-based messaging group.
These steps are merely a mental process (i.e. receiving and sharing information). Examiner notes mental process includes describe mental observations and evaluations that can be performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion and also those performed with a pen/pencil or a general purpose computer (i.e. determining, analyzing, and updating), as noted in the case law cited above.
Claims 15 and 21 contain the same process steps as claim 1, performed using general purpose computer.
STEP 2A Prong Two: NO. Evaluating additional elements recited in the claim individually and in combination, the claim as a whole does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
The additional elements in in claim 1 appear in bold and account for insignificant extra solution activity. The limitations communication server, user device, data structure, etc., defined generally and are mere generic entities constitute mere data gathering and update recited at a high level of generality and amount to receiving or updating data generally, which is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The limitations remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which cannot provide an inventive concept.
STEP 2B: NO. Evaluating additional elements recited, the claim as a whole does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The analysis above in parts and re-evaluated again for the claims as a whole, the additional elements are mere generic entities such as “communication server”, “user device”, “a messaging engine”, “data structure”, etc., without any given implementation thus amount to data gathering and update recited at a high level of generality and amount to receiving or updating data over a network, which is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II.
The limitations remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which cannot provide an inventive concept.
ANALYSIS 2A Dependent Claims 2, 5-7 and 16-20 and 22-29
Dependent claims recite additional elements: cellular telephone in claim 2, targeting a message in claims 5 and 27, members of the proximity-based messaging group in claims 6, 7, 28 and 29, determine location of the user device in claims 16, 17, 22 and 23, cellular network in claims 18 and 24, modify the proximity-based messaging group according to context information in claims 19, 20, 25 and 26.
The dependent claims further recite additional elements that are recited at a high level of generality and thus amount to intended proximity-based messaging group descriptors. Thus, the claims are mere data gathering and analysis recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and output, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and analyzing. See MPEP 2106.05.
ANALYSIS 2B Dependent Claims 2, 5-7 and 16-20 and 22-29 NO. Evaluating additional elements recited, the claim as a whole does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The analysis above in parts and re-evaluated again for the claims as a whole, the additional elements are mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality and amount to receiving or analyzing data over a network, which is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II.
The limitations remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which cannot provide an inventive concept.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 15, 16, 19, 21 and 22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 8 and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11109186 B1.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, but they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are both exhibiting similar adding user device to a proximity-based messaging group when determined that the user device is traveling toward an active area, and update a location or a shape of the active area based on number of user devices move in and out of the active area and specified number of user devices changes.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to reasonably interpret the limitations of the instant application, which is the fact the Same Invention in 1, 8 and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11109186 B1, since they are utilized the similar adding user device to a proximity-based messaging group when determined that the user device is traveling toward an active area, and update a location or a shape of the active area based on number of user devices move in and out of the active area and specified number of user devices changes. It is obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to remove steps or elements from a previously filed claim absent evidence of criticality of the step. The rationale why a modification such as removal of steps does not appear to render the prior art unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. As such the removal is obvious.
The claims are rejected under obvious type double patenting because although different they are alleged not patentably distinct, they have a common inventor. The invention is also commonly owned by T-Mobile USA, Inc. at the time of invention.
This is an obviousness-type double patenting rejection. Further claim tables are provided below.
The claims 1, 15, 16, 19, 21 and 22 of current application and claims 1, 8 and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11109186 are compared as follows, showing the obviousness of the teachings of the patent to the claimed invention:
Current Application
US Patent No. 11109186
Claim 1 (for example):
Claims 1 and 8 (for example):
1. A method for providing proximity-based messaging, the method comprising:
determining, based on a direction of travel of a user device and a location of the user device, whether the user device is traveling toward an active area for a proximity-based messaging group managed by a messaging engine of the communication server; and
responsive to determining that the user device is traveling toward the active area, adding, by the communication server, the user device to the proximity-based messaging group; and
automatically updating, by the communication server, a spatial boundary defining membership of the proximity-based messaging group when:
each of a specified number of user devices within the active area moves in or out of the active area; and
the specified number of user devices changes, wherein the spatial boundary is maintained in a data structure.
1. A method for providing proximity-based messaging, the method comprising:
determining an active area for a proximity-based messaging group;
determining a location of a user device associated with a user;
determining whether the location is within the active area;
responsive to determining that the location is not within the active area:
determining a direction of travel of the user device from an application executing on the user device other than a navigation application; and
determining, based on the direction of travel and the location, whether the user device is traveling toward the active area; and
responsive to determining that the user device is traveling toward the active area, adding the user to the proximity-based messaging group; wherein:
a location, a size, and a shape of the active area are determined to contain a specified number of user devices within the active area, and
the location, the size, and the shape of the active area are automatically updated when each of the specified number of user devices moves in and out of the active area and when the specified number of user devices changes.
In addition, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of each claim in the present application is essentially identical to the scope of a corresponding claim in the instant application and US Patent No. 11109186, as indicated in the above claim diagram (see above for details).
Claims 1, 2, 15, 16, 18-22 and 24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 8-10 and 12-14 of U.S. Patent No. 11496862.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, but they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are both exhibiting similar adding user device to a proximity-based messaging group when determined that the user device is traveling toward an active area, and update a location or a shape of the active area based on number of user devices move in and out of the active area and specified number of user devices changes.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to reasonably interpret the limitations of the instant application, which is the fact The Same Invention in 1, 8-10 and 12-14 of U.S. Patent No. 11496862, since they are utilized the similar method for adding user device to a proximity-based messaging group when determined that the user device is traveling toward an active area, and update a location or a shape of the active area based on number of user devices move in and out of the active area and specified number of user devices changes. It is obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to remove steps or elements from a previously filed claim absent evidence of criticality of the step. The rationale why a modification such as removal of steps does not appear to render the prior art unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. As such the removal is obvious.
The claims are rejected under obvious type double patenting because although different they are alleged not patentably distinct, they have a common inventor. The invention is also commonly owned by T-Mobile USA, Inc. at the time of invention.
This is an obviousness-type double patenting rejection. Further claim tables are provided below.
The claims 1, 2, 15, 16, 18-22 and 24 of current application and claims 8-10 and 12-14 of U.S. Patent No. 11496862 are compared as follows, showing the obviousness of the teachings of the patent to the claimed invention:
Current Application
US Patent No. 11496862
Claim 1 (for example):
Claim 8 (for example):
1. A method for providing proximity-based messaging, the method comprising:
determining, based on a direction of travel of a user device and a location of the user device, whether the user device is traveling toward an active area for a proximity-based messaging group managed by a messaging engine of the communication server; and
responsive to determining that the user device is traveling toward the active area, adding, by the communication server, the user device to the proximity-based messaging group; and
automatically updating, by the communication server, a spatial boundary defining membership of the proximity-based messaging group when:
each of a specified number of user devices within the active area moves in or out of the active area; and
the specified number of user devices changes, wherein the spatial boundary is maintained in a data structure.
8. A method for providing proximity-based messaging, the method comprising:
determining an active area for a proximity-based messaging group;
determining a location of a user device associated with a user;
determining whether the location is within the active area; and
responsive to determining that the location is not within the active area:
analyzing context information related to the user device;
determining whether the context information meets criteria for adding the user to the proximity-based messaging group;
responsive to determining that the context information meets the criteria for adding the user to the proximity-based messaging group,
adding the user to the proximity-based messaging group;
determining a direction of travel of the user device;
determining, based on the direction of travel and the location, whether the user device is traveling toward the active area; and
responsive to determining that the user device is traveling toward the active area, adding the user to the proximity-based messaging group; wherein:
a location, a size, and a shape of the active area are determined to contain a specified number of user devices within the active area, and
the location, the size, and the shape of the active area are automatically updated when each of the specified number of user devices moves in and out of the active area and when the specified number of user devices changes.
In addition, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of each claim in the present application is essentially identical to the scope of a corresponding claim in the instant application and US Patent No. 11496862, as indicated in the above claim diagram (see above for details).
Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 15-21 and 27-29 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-7 and 12-16 of U.S. Patent No. 11689885.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, but they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are both exhibiting similar method of adding user device to a proximity-based messaging group when determined that the user device is traveling toward an active area, and update a location or a shape of the active area based on number of user devices move in and out of the active area and specified number of user devices changes.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to reasonably interpret the limitations of the instant application, which is the fact The Same Invention in 1-7 and 12-16 of U.S. Patent No. 11689885, since they are utilized the similar method for adding user device to a proximity-based messaging group when determined that the user device is traveling toward an active area, and update a location or a shape of the active area based on number of user devices move in and out of the active area and specified number of user devices changes. It is obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to remove steps or elements from a previously filed claim absent evidence of criticality of the step. The rationale why a modification such as removal of steps does not appear to render the prior art unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. As such the removal is obvious.
The claims are rejected under obvious type double patenting because although different they are alleged not patentably distinct, they have a common inventor. The invention is also commonly owned by T-Mobile USA, Inc. at the time of invention.
This is an obviousness-type double patenting rejection. Further claim tables are provided below.
The claims 1, 2, 5-7, 15-21 and 27-29 of current application and claims 1-7 and 12-16 of U.S. Patent No. 11689885 are compared as follows, showing the obviousness of the teachings of the patent to the claimed invention:
Current Application
US Patent No. 11689885
Claim 1 (for example):
Claim 1 (for example):
1. A method for providing proximity-based messaging, the method comprising:
determining, based on a direction of travel of a user device and a location of the user device, whether the user device is traveling toward an active area for a proximity-based messaging group managed by a messaging engine of the communication server; and
responsive to determining that the user device is traveling toward the active area, adding, by the communication server, the user device to the proximity-based messaging group; and
automatically updating, by the communication server, a spatial boundary defining membership of the proximity-based messaging group when:
each of a specified number of user devices within the active area moves in or out of the active area; and
the specified number of user devices changes, wherein the spatial boundary is maintained in a data structure.
1. A method for providing proximity-based messaging, the method comprising:
determining an active area for a proximity-based messaging group;
determining a location of a user device associated with a user;
determining whether the location is within the active area;
responsive to determining that the location is not within the active area:
determining a direction of travel of the user device; and
determining, based on the direction of travel and the location, whether the user device is traveling toward the active area; and
responsive to determining that the user device is traveling toward the active area, adding the user to the proximity-based messaging group; wherein:
a location and a shape of the active area are determined to contain a specified number of user devices within the active area, and
the location and the shape of the active area are automatically updated when each of the specified number of user devices moves in and out of the active area and when the specified number of user devices changes.
In addition, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of each claim in the present application is essentially identical to the scope of a corresponding claim in the instant application and US Patent No. 11689885, as indicated in the above claim diagram (see above for details).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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, 2, 5-7 and 15-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bjontegard (US 20160337505 A1), in view of Borghei (US 20120008526 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Bjontegard teaches a method for providing proximity-based messaging, the method comprising:
determining, by a communication server (Paragraph 0067; context is defined herein includes but is not limited to the activity, location, physical state, direction and speed of travel, level of engagement as well as the surrounding environment the user is within, other person(s) who may be present or nearby, what other mobile devices are present or nearby, devices and/or equipment that can communicate via a Wide Area Network or any other methodology directly to one or more end users or through a back-end cloud based network connected to a cellular or WiFi network or any future method of communication capable of such communication. Paragraph 0199; MCRM [mobile customer relationship management] system), based on a direction of travel of a user device and a location of the user device, whether the user device is traveling toward an active area for a proximity-based messaging group (Paragraph 0098; the cloud based MCRM system verifying that this is a fan that is coming to a game, as well as the identity of the device and the location of the user. Once the user is in transit on the way to the stadium, the mapping feature of the application detect that the user is coming close to the stadium. If there is a game that day it is likely that he is heading to the game. Relevant offer to a participating retailer close to the stadium can be presented as the user approaches. Figure 24 and Paragraph 0199; as the user is approaching the park, offers, coupons, information and encouragements can be delivered. As user continues through the physical environment, automatic updates to the user’s context and surroundings can be shared with others based on user’s permissions) managed by a messaging engine of the communication server (Figure 9; context bubble, 24 and 33, Paragraphs 0199; MCRM [mobile customer relationship management] system); and
responsive to determining that the user device is traveling toward the active area (Paragraph 0098; the mapping feature of the application detect that the user is coming close to the stadium. Paragraph 0199; as the user continues through the physical environment, automatic updates to the user's context and surroundings can be shared with others based on the user's permissions. Determine that the user is parked at a gate and coming close to that specific gate, or as user approach specific rides, enhanced experience may be presented to the user), adding, by the communication server (Paragraph 0199; MCRM [mobile customer relationship management] system), the user device to the proximity-based messaging group (Paragraphs 0098 and 0199; relevant offer to a participating retailer close to the stadium can be presented as the user approaches. As user getting close to a specific ride and approaching proximity within waiting line for the ride, invite user to establish ad-hoc peer-to-peer communication using technologies, and a location based game can be triggered for user to pay against each other); and
automatically updating, by the communication server (Paragraph 0199; MCRM [mobile customer relationship management] system), a location or a shape of the active area (Figure 24 and Paragraph 0199; when there is a long line waiting to enter or line up for special events, greet the players or locker-room access. Examiner asserts that the line may be interpreted as an active area. A location based game can be triggered and end users that have the solution on their devices can be connected and start playing against each other. The winner may get a front of the line pass if he wins. As people move away from the location, they will drop out of the game, and others will be invited to join as they come into proximity. Examiner asserts that the wait line is updated by people moves in and/or out of the line, and based on the move in and/or out, number of users changes. Further, as user continues through the physical environment, automatic updates to the user’s context and surroundings can be shared with others based on user’s permission, and as user move towards specific games or area within the park or stadium, a game or AR experience can be triggered based on the active area) when:
each of a specified number of user devices within the active area moves in or out of the active area (Paragraph 0199; as people move away from the location, they will drop out of the game, and others will be invited to join as they come into proximity); and
the specified number of user devices changes (Paragraph 0199; number of user devices changes as user moves in and/or out of the wait line).
Bjontegard does not explicitly teach a spatial boundary defining membership of the proximity-based messaging group, wherein the spatial boundary is maintained in a data structure. In an analogous art, Borghei teaches a spatial boundary defining membership of the proximity-based messaging group (Paragraph 0109; the geofence of a location-sharing group can be defined to be the minimum convex hull that encloses the current locations of all participating devices in the location-sharing group. In some implementations, the geofence of the location-sharing group traces the outer boundary of the combined coverage area of all participating devices in location-sharing group. Figure 6 and Paragraph 0148; a geographic coverage of the geofence around the location-sharing group. The geofence around the location-sharing group can be updated based on the current boundary of the combined coverage area (606). Then, an updated geographic location for the location-sharing group can be determined based on the updated geofence around the location-sharing group (608)), wherein the spatial boundary is maintained in a data structure Paragraph 0091; the location-information server can maintain a location information database and provide the location information of each patriating device to other participating devices in the location-sharing group. Figure 6 and Paragraph 0148; a current boundary of the combined coverage area that encloses the current geographic location of each mobile device by at least the coverage radius of the mobile device, and the geofence around the location-sharing group can be updated based on the current boundary of the combined coverage area. Thus the geofence of the location-sharing group can be stored int eh database in order to update the geofence). Further, Borghei teaches automatically updating, by the communication server, a spatial boundary defining membership of the proximity-based messaging group when: the specified number of user devices changes (Paragraph 0087; a new database entry for the location-sharing group can be created by the location-information server as soon as the group initiation request is received, when invited devices are subsequently joined the group, the location-information server can update the database entry to include the newly added group member devices. Paragraph 0109; he geofence of a location-sharing group can be defined to be the minimum convex hull that encloses the current locations of all participating devices in the location-sharing group. In some implementations, the geofence of the location-sharing group traces the outer boundary of the combined coverage area of all participating devices in location-sharing group). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Bjontegard and Borghei because it can be helpful in many situations to keep a group together and to inform the group with information the group member is interested in, and/or to improve security around the group by alerting user when certain people or vendors come near the group (Borghei, Paragraphs 0031-0033).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Bjontegard and Borghei teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Further, Bjontegard teaches wherein the user device comprises a cellular telephone (Paragraph 0067; mobile devices that can communicate via cellular or WiFi network).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Bjontegard and Borghei teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Further, Bjontegard teaches further comprising targeting a message to a portion of the proximity-based messaging group (Paragraph 0092; geo-specific messages are also enabled by the presently described systems and processes. By establishing geo-fences of these locations, messages can be delivered as users enter the geo-fences around these locations. Paragraph 0098; once the user crosses a predetermined geo-fence around the stadium, as selected by the operator of the MCRM system, it is likely that the user is going to the game, and offers related to the game and venue such as coupons for team merchandise or concession stands offers can be presented to the user's mobile device).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Bjontegard and Borghei teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Further, Bjontegard teaches wherein the proximity-based messaging group includes at least two members who have no previous connection with each other (Paragraph 0098; as the fan leaves the stadium, the fan's connected device will cross the established geo-fence and a “thank you for coming” message can be displayed. Fans may include at least two fans who have no previous connection with each other. Paragraph 0086; visitors to locations, venues or events where there is a long line waiting to enter—such as at a theme park where people line up for roller coaster rides. In such a context, a location based game can be triggered and end users that have the solution on their devices can be connected and start playing against each other).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Bjontegard and Borghei teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Further, Bjontegard teaches further comprising presenting a list of members of the proximity-based messaging group (Paragraph 0097; each participant of the meeting is in the same context. Proximity based communication between the participants can then be automatically engaged, and enables communication between the participants directly).
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 recites similar features as claim 1, therefore is rejected for at least the same reason as discussed above regarding claim 1. Further, Bjontegard teaches a system (Paragraph 0029; system), comprising: a non-transitory storage medium storing instructions; and a processor that executes the instructions to perform functions (Paragraph 0029; system is adapted to process various information obtained from sensor activities including location, activity, speed and direction of travel, social media status, or various other environment aspects of the users. The gathered and shared information flows through the system and is used intelligence activity by which the CICP processes a plurality of data files relating to a contextual environment of the user of a connected device. Examiner asserts that memory storing instructions will be needed to process the above mentioned functions).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Bjontegard and Borghei teaches all of the limitations of claim 15, as described above. Further, Bjontegard teaches wherein the processor further executes the instructions to determine the location of the user device (Paragraphs 0163 and 0199; real-time contextual information about the user's present and current context to be used to determine contextual awareness for the user. This contextual awareness includes information such as the user's current situation, location, activity, actions, motion, speed of travel, direction, time/day/date, who the user is—with either a fully personally identifiable tag if the user has opted in to the service—or via a not personally identifiable tag if the user has not opted in—as well as who else is in the user's proximity and/or what other devices is in the user's proximity).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Bjontegard and Borghei teaches all of the limitations of claim 16, as described above. Further, Bjontegard teaches wherein the processor further executes the instructions to determine the location of the user device using triangulation (Paragraphs 0129 and 0199; by recognizing targets that are placed in a known physical location, the MCRM system will capture the target and match it against the target database. Since the physical location of the target is known, the user's location is also known because the user needs to be in front of the target for the AR/IR to recognize it. The solution uses a combination of the user's known location, the MCRM database of known and defined locations, the MCRM's knowledge of AR/IR target's locations, and if a known number of these AR/IR targets are recognized as dynamic directional markers, directional arrows can appear as the user moves through the environment guiding the user to the desired end location).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Bjontegard and Borghei teaches all of the limitations of claim 15, as described above. Further, Bjontegard teaches wherein the processor further executes the instructions to communicate with the proximity-based messaging group (Paragraph 0098; the cloud based MCRM system verifying that this is a fan that is coming to a game, as well as the identity of the device and the location of the user. Once the user is in transit on the way to the stadium, the mapping feature of the application detect that the user is coming close to the stadium. If there is a game that day it is likely that he is heading to the game. Relevant offer to a participating retailer close to the stadium can be presented as the user approaches. Figure 24 and Paragraph 0199; as the user is approaching the park, offers, coupons, information and encouragements can be delivered. Offers can be for discounts at concessions inside the park, restaurants, merchandise, limited time offers, memorabilia and/or items such as dolls, mascots, hats and masks. Offers can also be delivered on behalf of participating sponsors outside the park, such as hotels, bars and restaurants) via a cellular network (Paragraph 0067; mobile devices that can communicate via cellular or WiFi network).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Bjontegard and Borghei teaches all of the limitations of claim 15, as described above. Further, Bjontegard teaches wherein the processor further executes the instructions to modify the proximity-based messaging group according to context information (Paragraphs 0068 and 0199; current context data gathered on an end user's device is preferably updated via a wide area mobile network or local area network to a contextually intelligent server, preferably a “cloud” based server. The server matches the current context data provided by the device with the user's past and historical data that has been collected previously via, preferably by other means and that is included in the cloud based database. The server communicates with the connected device(s) concerning a variety of contextually relevant information such as, for example, feedback, experiences, recommendations, offers, coupons, advice, tactile feedback, and content such as visual and audio representations, augmented reality, and other audio/visual displays. Preferably the information communicated between the device and the server is useful and relevant to the user's current context and likely to be useful to the user as the user enters a new context).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Bjontegard and Borghei teaches all of the limitations of claim 19, as described above. Further, Bjontegard teaches wherein the context information includes a calendar appointment or social media information (Paragraph 0029; process various information obtained from sensor activities including a location, an activity, a speed and direction of travel, a social media status, or various other environmental aspects of the user. The gathered and shared information may be used to relating to a contextual environment of the user of a connected device. The information acquired by the CICP about a particular user has immediate and future benefits for that user. Paragraph 0199; as the user continues through the physical environment, automatic updates to the user's context and surroundings can be shared with others based on the user's permissions. These can be updates to their social media status such as on Facebook and Twitter for an individual end-user).
Regarding claim 21, claim 21 recites similar features as claim 1, therefore is rejected for at least the same reason as discussed above regarding claim 1. Further, Bjontegard teaches a non-transitory computer storage medium having programming instructions stored thereon that, when executed by one or more processors of a communication server, cause the communication server to perform operations (Paragraph 0029; system is adapted to process various information obtained from sensor activities including location, activity, speed and direction of travel, social media status, or various other environment aspects of the users. The gathered and shared information flows through the system and is used intelligence activity by which the CICP processes a plurality of data files relating to a contextual environment of the user of a connected device. Examiner asserts that memory storing instructions will be needed to process the above mentioned functions).
Regarding claim 22, claim 22 recites similar features as claim 16, therefore is rejected for at least the same reason as discussed above regarding claim 16.
Regarding claim 23, claim 23 recites similar features as claim 17, therefore is rejected for at least the same reason as discussed above regarding claim 17.
Regarding claim 24, claim 24 recites similar features as claim 18, therefore is rejected for at least the same reason as discussed above regarding claim 18.
Regarding claim 25, claim 25 recites similar features as claim 19, therefore is rejected for at least the same reason as discussed above regarding claim 19.
Regarding claim 26, claim 26 recites similar features as claim 20, therefore is rejected for at least the same reason as discussed above regarding claim 20.
Regarding claim 27, claim 27 recites similar features as claim 5, therefore is rejected for at least the same reason as discussed above regarding claim 5.
Regarding claim 28, claim 28 recites similar features as claim 6, therefore is rejected for at least the same reason as discussed above regarding claim 6.
Regarding claim 29, claim 29 recites similar features as claim 7, therefore is rejected for at least the same reason as discussed above regarding claim 7.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jedrzejewski et al (US 20170294131 A1) discloses dynamic talk group formation in a wireless communication system as a function of subscriber unit movement relative to a defined incident location.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jing Gao whose telephone number is (571)270-7226. The examiner can normally be reached on 9am - 6pm M-F.
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 Alison Slater can be reached on (571) 270-0375. 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.
/Jing Gao/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647