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
Regarding Claims and Abstract
. There are two sets of Claims and Abstract, first set filed on 5/25/2023 and second set filed on 10/21/2023. However, the Claims and Abstract filed on 10/21/2023 do not have annotations indicating whether the Claims and Abstract are Original, Amended or Canceled. For examination purpose, Examiner will use the Claims and Abstract filed on 10/21/2023 in this Office Action. Appropriate correction is needed in response to this Office Action.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the Abstract recites “financing, education, health, etc.,” and “This invention …” on line 3, and “e.g., home, work, school, etc.) on line 5. 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).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because it appears that the portions of the drawings are in greyscale. Examiner suggests provide corrected drawing in black and white format. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 2 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “the locations” on line 1, “its sub-components” on line 2, “comprising the steps of” on lines 2-3 and 5, “allowing the user” on line 4, “their mobile address” on lines 4 and 6, “or any other traditional mailing address” on line 5, “the user’s election” on line 6, “or any other storage structure” on line 7, “storing the mobile address as geolocation coordinates in a data structure with the intent of replacing or complementing any traditional address” on lines 8-9, “mandating the presence” on line 12, “the absence of the coordinates” on line 15, “use a mobile address” on line 15. Examiner suggests changing the limitations to “mailing address sub-components”, “comprising selection”, “or storage structure”, “storing the mobile address as geolocation coordinates in the database table or storage structure, wherein the mobile address may replacing or complementing any traditional address”, “mandating a presence”, “an absence of the coordinates”, and “use [[a]] the mobile address”.
Claim 2 recites “under the appellation “mobile address” or any other appellation deemed necessary in the implementation of the method”, Examiner suggests deleting this phrase. Claim 2 further recites “with the understanding that the mobile address”, Examiner suggests changing the limitation to “further the mobile address”. Claim 2 further recites “their locations”, Examiner suggests changing the limitation to “respective locations”. Claim 2 further recites “with the propensity to serve as a mean for identity verification”, Examiner suggests changing the limitation to “wherein the mobile address serves for identity verification”.
Examiner recommends Applicant to revisit claim language to ensure proper language format.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 is 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 allowing user to select mobile address, storing the mobile address, update the mobile address, mandating presence of user’s geolocation coordinates in transactions, saving location coordinates while executing an action. 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.
The method claim 1 recites limitations, “A method for allowing mobile applications to use the locations of users' mobile devices as a form of address in combination with or replacement of a mailing address or its sub-components, comprising the steps of: a. allowing the user to select their mobile address instead of, or in addition to a home address, work address, or any other traditional mailing address, including the steps performed in saving the user's election to use their mobile address in a database table or any other storage structure, b. storing the mobile address as geolocation coordinates in a data structure with the intent of replacing or complementing any traditional address, c. updating the mobile address, wherein the mobile address is updated with additional location coordinates continuously or at scheduled or random times, d. mandating the presence of the user's geolocation coordinates in transactions and processes implemented by a software application for users with a mobile address, e. saving location coordinates while executing an action or rejecting the action execution in the absence of the coordinates for users electing to use a mobile address”. Since the claim is directed to a method, which is one of the statutory categories of the invention (Step 1: YES).
The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception. The claim recites allowing user to select mobile address, storing the mobile address, update the mobile address, mandating presence of user’s geolocation coordinates in transactions, saving location coordinates while executing an action. These limitations without showing steps or functions recited in the claim is no more than an abstract idea i.e., mental process of receiving, sending, receiving and generating, etc. (Step 2A: Prong One Abstract Idea = YES).
The claim is then analyzed if it requires an additional elements or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, reply on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception – i.e., limitation that are indicative of integration into a practical application; improving the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. In the current claims, there is no additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A: Prong Two Abstract Idea = YES).
Next the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine if there are additional limitation recited in the claim such that the claim amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. In the current scenario there are no 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 (Step 2B: NO). Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 2 does not add any positive limitation or step that recite within the scope of the claim and does not carry patentable weight they are also rejected for the same reasons as independent claims.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lereya et al. (US 20210166196 A1 and Lereya hereinafter), in view of Mendoza et al. (US 20180218367 A1 and Mendoza hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Lereya teaches method for allowing mobile applications to use the locations of users' mobile devices as a form of address in combination with or replacement of a mailing address or its sub-components (Paragraphs 0887 and 00888; geographical location values in one of the columns may be a manual entry of an stress in a city, and/or user-specific information that may include GPS coordinates obtained from devices associated with individuals), comprising the steps of:
a. allowing the user to select their mobile address instead of, or in addition to a home address, work address, or any other traditional mailing address (Paragraphs 0887; geographic location may be user-specific information may include GPS coordinates obtained from the devices associated with individuals. The system may be configured to communicate with the objects associated with such individuals to receive periodic updates of the GPS coordinates, and to update, in the data structure, corresponding geographical location values. The updates may be based on a period set as a default or set by user preference. Examiner asserts when user set preference for location update, the user is allowed to select their mobile address), including the steps performed in saving the user's election to use their mobile address in a database table or any other storage structure (Paragraphs 0886 and 0887; the geographic location updates may be based on a period set as a default or set by user preference. Examiner asserts when the location updates according to user preference, then the user selection/preference is saved),
b. storing the mobile address as geolocation coordinates in a data structure with the intent of replacing or complementing any traditional address (Paragraphs 0887 and 0888; the system may receive a plurality of values from the cells of a table and cause the plurality of values to be maintained in a data structure. One of the columns [of the data structure] may be configured to retain geographic location values. Paragraphs 0887 and 0888; the geographic location values may be at least one of a street address and/or user-specific information may include GPS coordinates obtained from the device associated with the individuals),
c. updating the mobile address, wherein the mobile address is updated with additional location coordinates continuously or at scheduled or random times (Paragraphs 0886 and 0887; the geographic location updates may be based on a period set as a default or set by user preference),
d. mandating the presence of the user's geolocation coordinates in transactions and processes implemented by a software application for users with a mobile address (Paragraphs 0703 and 0704; the data structure may include indications of tasks, identities of the plurality of geographically disbursed individuals, and geographical locations associated with the plurality of geographically disbursed individuals. An indication of a task may include a name, an abbreviation, a location or any designation that may be used to identify a task. Examiner asserts that in order to perform the task, the individual needs to be present at the location),
e. saving location coordinates (Paragraphs 0887 and 0888; the system may receive a plurality of values from the cells of a table and cause the plurality of values to be maintained in a data structure. One of the columns [of the data structure] may be configured to retain geographic location values. Paragraphs 0887 and 0888; the geographic location values may be at least one of a street address and/or user-specific information may include GPS coordinates obtained from the device associated with the individuals).
Lereya does not explicitly teach e. saving location coordinates while executing an action or rejecting the action execution in the absence of the coordinates for users electing to use a mobile address. In an analogous art, Mendoza teaches e. saving location coordinates while executing an action or rejecting the action execution in the absence of the coordinates for users electing to use a mobile address (Paragraph 0053; the payment server 310 may determine that the user of the user device 240 is authorized to give the permission if the user device 240 is associated with the financial transaction. The user device 240 may be recognized or identified as being associated with the financial transaction if a location of the user device 240 (e.g., a device location) is proximate to a location of the merchant device 210 (e.g., a merchant location). The payment server 310 may receive geolocation data associated with the device location from the user device 240, and analyze the geolocation data to determine whether the device location is proximate to the merchant location. If the device location is determined to be proximate to the merchant location, the payment server 310 determines that the user of the user device 240 is authorized to give the permission. On the other hand, if the device location is not determined to be proximate to the merchant location, the payment server 310 does not recognize or identify the user of the user device 240 as being authorized to give the permission). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lereya and Mendoza because it would prevent potentially fraudulent financial transaction (Mendoza, Paragraph 0003).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Lereya and Mendoza teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Further, Lereya teaches the method of claim 1 under the appellation “mobile address” or any other appellation deemed necessary in the implementation of the method, with the understanding that the mobile address is one or multiple geographic location coordinates of a user, timestamped or not, allowing to identify their locations in general or at specific times as needed, used as an alternate form of address with the propensity to serve as a mean for identity verification, validation, or confirmation (Paragraph 0703; an identity of an individual may be represented by alphanumeric data, a graphic element, a name, a title, a position, a location, a photograph, an object, an avatar, a number, a numeric value, a symbol, alphanumerics, characters, or any other visualization capable of identifying a specific individual, multiple individuals, a group of individuals, or an entity).
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shelomentseva (US 20220148104 A1) discloses using geographic location in addition to street address in selecting desired service and/or provider based on location.
Matthiesen et al. (US 20240422244 A1) discloses locating and navigating to the location of a requestor based on proximity between a requestor device and a provider device
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/
Examiner
Art Unit 2647