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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments and amendments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
Applicant amended representative independent claims to recite “based on historical movement data for the user of the mobile device and a number of instances of past movement behavior indicated by the historical movement data that match an instance of movement indicated by the travel data, wherein the likelihood that the data meets the unusual behavior threshold decreases as the number of instances of historical movement data that match an instance of movement indicated by the travel data increases”.
Nicosia in view of Weston do not specifically disclose however Acevedo discloses based on historical movement data for the user of the mobile device (see [0003], “determined plurality of target persons based on a plurality of historical movement data associated with each target person within the plurality of target persons.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Nicosia and Weston with that of Acevedo. Doing so would conform to well-known conventions in the field of invention;
Nicosia, Weston and Acevedo do not specifically disclose however Chadick discloses and, a number of instances of past movement behavior indicated by the historical movement data that match an instance of movement indicated by the travel data (see col. 8, lines 56-65, “the anomaly score can be calculated from a variance in the path from a straight line or deviation from known accessible geographic paths, such as streets, sidewalks, geographic features (e.g., bodies of water, etc.), or any other suitable known geographic limitation that precludes user access. The anomaly score can alternatively be calculated by mapping each location data point to the tower region map, and for a given geographic point (e.g., a given longitude and latitude), looking at the number of data points associated with the geographic point.”)
Nicosia, Weston and Acevedo do not specifically disclose however Chadick discloses wherein the likelihood that the data meets the unusual behavior threshold decreases as the number of instances of historical movement data that match an instance of movement indicated by the travel data increases;(see col. 3, lines 26-35; the method for correcting location data includes receiving a reported location for a device S100; determining whether the accuracy of the reported location is below a threshold accuracy S200; in response to determination that the reported location has an accuracy below a threshold accuracy, determining a correction location S300 by: determining the probability that the reported location approximates the true device location S310, determining a set of possible geographic locations for the device);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Nicosia, Weston & Acevedo with that of Chadwick. Doing so would conform to well-known conventions in the field of invention.
Additionally, Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Here claims 1, 8 and 15 disclose “wherein the likelihood that the data meets the unusual behavior threshold decreases”. There is no clear recitation of support of this limitation for likelihood or its degree of relevance in the specification.
Claims 1, 8 & 15 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.
Claims 1, 8 & 15 recites the limitation "wherein the likelihood that the data meets" in line 8 of representative claim 1. Here, the independent claims introduce travel data and historical movement data. It is not clear which of the aforementioned “data” types the limitation in line 8, of representative claim 1, refers to. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “likelihood” in claims 1, 8 & 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “likelihood” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Here, the specification provides no standard for the term likelihood. There is no basis for how likelihood is computed. The reader would have no manner to determine when the claimed relationship is satisfied.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Here claims 1, 8 and 15 disclose “wherein the likelihood that the data meets the unusual behavior threshold decreases”. There is no clear recitation of support of this limitation for likelihood or its degree of relevance in the specification.
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 1, 8 & 15 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.
Claims 1, 8 & 15 recites the limitation "wherein the likelihood that the data meets" in line 8 of representative claim 1. Here, the independent claims introduce travel data and historical movement data. It is not clear which of the aforementioned “data” types the limitation in line 8, of representative claim 1, refers to. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “likelihood” in claims 1, 8 & 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “likelihood” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Here, the specification provides no standard for the term likelihood. There is no basis for how likelihood is computed. The reader would have no manner to determine when the claimed relationship is satisfied.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2, 9 & 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Here, representative claim 2, states short term storage is less than the predetermined time length. Representative independent claim 1, already recites long term storage requires greater than a predetermined time length. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-10, 13-17, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weston et al. (US 2024/0270234 A1) in view of Nicosia (US 2014/0204934 A1) in further view of Acevedo et al. (US 2016/0353488 A1) in further view of Chadwick (US 9,706,515 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Weston discloses a cellular network system comprising:
a radio access network (RAN) comprising a core network (see RAN, [0073]); and
a storage management server (see database [0033]) configured to:
receive travel data associated with a mobile device (obtaining speed data from various sensors, [0020]);
determine whether the travel data meets an unusual behavior (see “undesired behavior”, [0056]) threshold (see “threshold” [0018],[0056], inter alia) associated with unusual behavior for a user of the mobile device (see “undesired behavior”, [0056]);
in response to determining that the travel data meets or exceeds the threshold (see [0037], “ greater than the threshold speed”), cause the travel data to be stored in long term storage (see [0056], “historical data) including sensor data previously collected by the vehicle sensors 108 and/or the trailer sensors” wherein historical data is stored in database described earlier in [0033] as storage of various forms of long term storage including “optical media”, “hard drives”, “magnetic media” etc.), the long term storage being greater than a predetermined time length associated with short term storage (see [0033], “optical media”, “hard drives”, “magnetic media” are long term types of storage); and
Weston does not specifically disclose however Nicosia discloses in response to determining that the travel data does not meet or exceed the threshold, cause the travel data to be stored in short term storage (see [0031] when speed is below threshold, information is placed in non-volatile memory, which is for longer term storage);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Nicosia with that of Weston. Doing so would conform to well-known conventions in the field of invention.
Nicosia in view of Weston do not specifically disclose however Acevedo discloses based on historical movement data for the user of the mobile device (see [0003], “determined plurality of target persons based on a plurality of historical movement data associated with each target person within the plurality of target persons.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Nicosia and Weston with that of Acevedo. Doing so would conform to well-known conventions in the field of invention;
Nicosia, Weston and Acevedo do not specifically disclose however Chadick discloses and, a number of instances of past movement behavior indicated by the historical movement data that match an instance of movement indicated by the travel data (see col. 8, lines 56-65, “the anomaly score can be calculated from a variance in the path from a straight line or deviation from known accessible geographic paths, such as streets, sidewalks, geographic features (e.g., bodies of water, etc.), or any other suitable known geographic limitation that precludes user access. The anomaly score can alternatively be calculated by mapping each location data point to the tower region map, and for a given geographic point (e.g., a given longitude and latitude), looking at the number of data points associated with the geographic point.”)
Nicosia, Weston and Acevedo do not specifically disclose however Chadick discloses wherein the likelihood that the data meets the unusual behavior threshold decreases as the number of instances of historical movement data that match an instance of movement indicated by the travel data increases;(see col. 3, lines 26-35; the method for correcting location data includes receiving a reported location for a device S100; determining whether the accuracy of the reported location is below a threshold accuracy S200; in response to determination that the reported location has an accuracy below a threshold accuracy, determining a correction location S300 by: determining the probability that the reported location approximates the true device location S310, determining a set of possible geographic locations for the device);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Nicosia, Weston & Acevedo with that of Chadwick. Doing so would conform to well-known conventions in the field of invention.
Regarding claims 8 & 15, Weston discloses a storage management server and method comprising:
a processor (see processor [0075]) configured to:
receive travel data associated with a mobile device via a series of clusters that
each comprise a distributed unit (DU) (see mobile [0034]) that communicates with a central unit (CU) and cellular towers (see RAN , [0073], known to have central network unit and cellular towers);
determine whether the travel data meets an unusual behavior (see “undesired behavior”, [0056]) threshold (see “threshold” [0018],[0056], inter alia) associated with unusual behavior for a user of the mobile device (see “undesired behavior”, [0056]);
in response to determining that the travel data meets or exceeds the threshold (see [0037], “ greater than the threshold speed”), cause the travel data to be stored in long term storage (see [0056], “historical data) including sensor data previously collected by the vehicle sensors 108 and/or the trailer sensors” wherein historical data is stored in database described earlier in [0033] as storage of various forms of long term storage including “optical media”, “hard drives”, “magnetic media” etc.), the long term storage being greater than a predetermined time length associated with short term storage (see [0033], “optical media”, “hard drives”, “magnetic media” are long term types of storage); and
Weston does not specifically disclose however Nicosia discloses in response to determining that the travel data does not meet or exceed the threshold, cause the travel data to be stored in short term storage (see [0031] when speed is below threshold, information is placed in non-volatile memory, which is for longer term storage);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Nicosia with that of Weston. Doing so would conform to well-known conventions in the field of invention;
Nicosia in view of Weston do not specifically disclose however Acevedo discloses based on historical movement data for the user of the mobile device (see [0003], “determined plurality of target persons based on a plurality of historical movement data associated with each target person within the plurality of target persons.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Nicosia and Weston with that of Acevedo. Doing so would conform to well-known conventions in the field of invention.
Nicosia, Weston and Acevedo do not specifically disclose however Chadick discloses and, a number of instances of past movement behavior indicated by the historical movement data that match an instance of movement indicated by the travel data (see col. 8, lines 56-65, “the anomaly score can be calculated from a variance in the path from a straight line or deviation from known accessible geographic paths, such as streets, sidewalks, geographic features (e.g., bodies of water, etc.), or any other suitable known geographic limitation that precludes user access. The anomaly score can alternatively be calculated by mapping each location data point to the tower region map, and for a given geographic point (e.g., a given longitude and latitude), looking at the number of data points associated with the geographic point.”)
Nicosia, Weston and Acevedo do not specifically disclose however Chadick discloses wherein the likelihood that the data meets the unusual behavior threshold decreases as the number of instances of historical movement data that match an instance of movement indicated by the travel data increases;(see col. 3, lines 26-35; the method for correcting location data includes receiving a reported location for a device S100; determining whether the accuracy of the reported location is below a threshold accuracy S200; in response to determination that the reported location has an accuracy below a threshold accuracy, determining a correction location S300 by: determining the probability that the reported location approximates the true device location S310, determining a set of possible geographic locations for the device);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Nicosia, Weston & Acevedo with that of Chadwick. Doing so would conform to well-known conventions in the field of invention.
Regarding claims 2, 9 & 16, Weston in view Nicosia discloses the system, server and method of claims 1, 9 & 15,
Weston does not specifically disclose wherein the storage management server is further configured to in response to determining that the travel data being less than the unusual behavior threshold (see normal speed, i.e. not speeding [0031]), store the travel data for short term storage which is less than the
predetermined time length (store in long term memory, non-volatile [0031]) ;
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Nicosia with that of Weston. Doing so would conform to well-known conventions in the field of invention.
Regarding claims 3, 10 & 17, Weston in view Nicosia discloses the system, server and method of claims 1, 9 & 15, wherein the unusual behavior threshold is
determined based on movement behavior that the user takes that is unusual for the user based on
historical movement data of the user (see historical data [0056]).
Regarding claims 6, 13 & 20, Weston in view Nicosia discloses the system, server and method of claims 1, 9 & 15, wherein the travel data comprises locations and
times corresponding to respective locations of the mobile device (see different positions at different points in time [0027], also see GPS [0028]).
Regarding claims 7 & 14, Weston in view Nicosia discloses the system, server and method of claims 1 & 9, wherein the RAN further comprises a central unit (CU); and a series of clusters that each comprise a distributed unit (DU) that communicates with the CU and cellular towers, wherein each respective cluster creates and then transmits the
travel data from the DU of the cluster (see RAN, [0073]) to the storage management server (see database [0033]).
Claim(s) 4, 11, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weston et al. (US 2024/0270234 A1) in view of Nicosia (US 2014/0204934 A1) in further view of Acevedo in further view of Chadwick in further view of Abbott et al. (US 2021/0287262 A1).
Regarding claims 4, 11 and 18, Weston in view of Nicosia disclose the system of claim 3, server of 11 and method of 17,
Here, Abbott best discloses wherein the unusual behavior threshold is calculated based on a score (see score [0075]), whereby the score is calculated by determining a number of instances the user has made the movement behavior in the past based on comparing the user's travel data with past movement behavior (see behaviors [0002]) stored in the historical movement data of the user.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Weston, Nicosia, Acevedo and Chadwick with that of Abbott. Doing so would conform to well-known standards in the field of invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 12 & 19 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
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 K. WILFORD SHAHEED whose telephone number is (469) 295-9175. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9 am-6pm; CST; ALT Friday. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. The examiner’s Supervisor, Jinsong Hu, can be reached at (571)272-3965, where attempts to reach the examiner are unsuccessful.
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.
/KHALID W SHAHEED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2643
Prosecution Insights