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
This action is in response to the communication filed on 11/13/25.
All objections and rejections not set forth below have been withdrawn.
Claims 1 – 20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 2, 9, and 16 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.
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 16, they recite the limitation "the recipient resource account” (e.g. claim 2, line 2). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, thus rendering the scope of the claims indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 6 – 9, 13 – 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Renaud et al. (Renaud), US 2022/0014493 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Renaud discloses:
A system for predictive generation of data tokens and visual presentation based on device geolocation, the system comprising:
a processing device (e.g. Renaud, fig. 28:170);
a non-transitory storage device containing instructions when executed by the processing device (e.g. Renaud, fig. 28:180), causes the processing device to perform the steps of:
generate a user interface and transmit instructions to a user device to display the user interface (e.g. Renaud, fig. 3, fig. 32, fig. 33, fig. 34 – instructions are executed to generate a user interface upon the user’s mobile device);
transmit instructions to display an option , via the user interface (e.g. Renaud, fig. 3:27, 238; par. 76 – e.g. user is given the option to create and “send” or drop a new bubble), to authorize sharing positioning data from the user device (e.g. Renaud, par. 74, 76 – 79, 85 – the newly created bubble comprises positioning data, e.g. geo-channel parameters from the device, that the user wants to share with the bubble server and other users).
receive geolocation data from a global positioning system (GPS) of the user device (e.g. Renaud, par. 4, 74; fig. 20:130);
determine, based on the geolocation data, that the user device is near a second user device (e.g. Renaud, fig. 34; fig. 36; par. 118 – e.g. user device determines that it is located near other user devices within one or more bubbles, such as devices of male users or devices of female users; e.g. see also, par. 102, 106, 114, 128, 129);
transmit instructions to the user device to display, via the user interface, an option to conduct a resource transaction with the second user device (e.g. Renaud, par. 111, 118, 129; fig. 34:236 – the user interface displays an option for users within a bubble to conduct “resource transactions”, such as sharing multimedia content in real-time or posting other forms of information to other users);
receive instructions from the user device to conduct the resource transaction with the second user device (e.g. Renaud, fig. 34:236 – the interface receives the user’s instruction to share or post content to other users);
and process the resource transaction based on the receipt of the instructions to conduct the resource transaction from the user device (e.g. Renaud, par. 111, 118, 129, 132 – content or other information is shared with other user devices).
Regarding claim 2, as best determined in view of the above noted deficiencies, Renaud discloses:
wherein transmitting instructions to the user device to display, via the user interface, the option to conduct the resource transaction with the second user device further comprises: using geolocation tracking of a sender user and their associated user device at a point of a resource transmission request to compare the sender user's geolocation to at least one potential recipient user's geolocation data (e.g. Renaud, par. 104, 105, 106; fig. 3);
and automatically generating the recipient resource account as an option for the sender of the resource transmission (e.g. Renaud, par. 105).
Regarding claim 6, the combination enables:
wherein processing the resource transaction based on the receipt of the instructions to conduct the resource transaction from the user device further comprises automatically locating an account identifier associated with the second user device (e.g. Renaud, par. 103, 118 – users are automatically registered with account identifiers, e.g. unique id, when receiving bubbles sent by other users) and transmitting resources from an account associated with the user device (e.g. Renaud, par. 111, 118, 129; fig. 4, fig. 21; par. ) to an account signified by the account identifier associated with the second user device (e.g. Renaud, fig. 21; par. 103, 118).
Regarding claim 7, the combination enables:
further configured to transmit instructions to cause the user interface to display a resource value option, wherein the resource value option comprises an option to set an exact resource transaction value and resource type (e.g. Renaud, fig. 4:46a).
Claims 8, 9, 13 – 16, and 20 are medium and method claims essentially corresponding to the claims above, and they are rejected at least, for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 3, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Renaud et al. (Renaud), US 2022/0014493 A1, in view of Mascetti et al. (Mascetti), “Privacy in geo-social networks: proximity notification with untrusted service providers and curious buddies”.
Regarding claim 3, Renaud discloses a location based services system wherein proximity of all user devices (e.g. devices of males and females within an geographical area, such as a region or university campus) is determined (e.g. Renaud, fig. 34; par. 118, 129).
However, Renaud does not appear to explicitly disclose determining a proximity of user devices based upon a threshold and a calculated Euclidean distance.
However, Mascetti teaches location based services should determine a proximity of user devices based upon a threshold and a calculated Euclidean distance (e.g. Mascetti, sect. 3.1, par. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ proximity detection of user devices using a threshold and a calculated Euclidean distance as taught by Mascetti within the system of Renaud because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by the teachings that there are serious privacy concerns with location based services, even when a user registers under a pseudonym, and thus, it is a desirable feature for users to control the privacy of their location data with respect to their friends based upon distance calculations with user s
Thus, the combination enables:
wherein determining, based on the geolocation data, that the user device is near the second user device further comprises: performing a Euclidean distance calculation utilizing the geolocation data and pre-stored geolocation data of the second user device to determine distance between the user device and the second user device (e.g. Renaud, fig. 15; fig. 16a-c; Mascetti, sect. 1, par. 3; sect. 3.1, par. 1, 3);
comparing the distance to a predetermined distance threshold that defines proximity (Mascetti, sect. 3.1, par. 1);
and generating an indication that the user device and second user device are within the proximity of each other via transmission of the option to conduct the resource transaction with the second user device (e.g. Renaud, par. 129; fig. 34; Mascetti, sect. 3.1, par. 1; fig. 6).
Claims 10 and 17 are medium and method claims essentially corresponding to the claims above, and they are rejected at least, for the same reasons.
Claims 4, 5, 11, 12, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Renaud et al. (Renaud), US 2022/0014493 A1, in view of Das et al. (Das), US 2013/0109413 A1.
Regarding claim 4, Renaud discloses that a positioning system may employ GLONASS (e.g. Renaud, par. 4), however, Renaud does not appear to explicitly illustrate the configuration of a system to utilize the positioning systems of GLONASS in addition to GPS.
However, DAS explicitly teaches that location based systems may be configured to use a combination of positioning systems, including GLONASS and GPS (e.g. Das, par. 5, 6, 93, 119).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ the teachings of Daw within the system of Renaud, because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by the advantage of a system that may flexibly operate within a multitude of regions and networks (e.g. Das, par. 5, 6, 64, 93).
Thus, the combination enables:
further configured to utilize Global Navigation Satellite System (GLONASS) data in addition to the data from the GPS of the user device (e.g. Das, par. 93).
Regarding claim 5, Renaud discloses that wireless networks may employ location determination techniques, such as radio wave triangulation, specifically adapted for such wireless networks (e.g. Renaud, par. 3, 4), however, Renaud does not appear to explicitly illustrate using signal strength determinations of wi-fi networks for location determination.
However, DAS explicitly teaches using signal strength determinations of wi-fi networks for location determination (e.g. Das, par. 39, 94, Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ the teachings of Das within the system of Renaud, because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by the advantage of enabling location determination within areas that, such as buildings, that may not always have acceptable satellite positioning coverage (e.g. Das, par. 6, 36; Renaud, par. 129).
Thus, the combination enables:
receive Wi-Fi data from the user device, wherein the Wi-Fi data comprises measurements of signal strength of Wi-Fi networks nearby the user device (e.g. Das, par. 6, 7, 36, 39, 43, 113); compare the Wi-Fi data with information in a pre-stored Wi-Fi database (e.g. Das, par. 40, 43, 67, 114);
and match the signal strength of Wi-Fi networks nearby the user device with known locations of access points to estimate location of the user device (e.g. Das, par. 40, 41, 51, 114).
Claims 11, 12, 18, and 19 are medium and method claims essentially corresponding to the claims above, and they are rejected at least, for the same reasons.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims 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.
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 JEFFERY L WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-7965. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 am - 4:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Farid Homayounmehr can be reached on 571-272-3739. 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.
/JEFFERY L WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2495