DETAILED ACTION
Claim 1-20 are pending.
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 .
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 conflicting claims 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,972,806. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application recites similar features and limitations as the patented application. The instant application and Patent both recites features regarding a check in service and location based social media system.
Present Application 18/327,699
Patent 10,972,806
1. A system comprising:
at least one processor, a memory storage device storing instructions thereon which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to perform operations comprising:
receiving, over a network and from a client computing device, data indicating a selection of a location;
obtaining a plurality of media content items previously shared via a computing device from the location; and
causing a user interface to be presented that includes a chronological listing of the media content items shared from the location.
1. A system comprising:
a messaging server system including: an application server to:
receive from a first client device a location information including a location of the first client device, wherein a first user is associated with the first client device;
cause a status interface to be displayed on the first client device, wherein the status interface includes a plurality of locations that are within a predetermined distance from the location of the first client device, wherein the plurality of locations includes a first location;
receive a selection from the first client device of the first location via the status interface;
store the first location in a location database associated with the first user, wherein the location database includes:
locations previously selected by the first client device via the status interface, locations associated with media content items received from the first client device, or locations associated with the location information received from the first client device,
generate a country selectable item that includes a number of countries included in the location database associated with the first user, a city selectable item that includes the number of cities included in the location database associated with the first user, and a plurality of timeline selectable items that are organized in chronological order of locations in the location database associated with the first user; and
cause a passport interface to be displayed on the first client device, wherein the passport interface includes a plurality of selectable items including the country selectable item, the city selectable item, and the timeline selectable items.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims 15-20 in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claims 15-20 are supported in paragraphs in at least p. 0049-0067.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9-13, 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(1) as being anticipated by Constantinides (US 2020/0236514).
Claims 1 and 16, Constantinides teaches a system comprising: at least one processor;
a memory storage device storing instructions thereon which, when executed by the at least one processor (p. 0034), cause the system to perform operations comprising:
receiving, over a network and from a client computing device, data indicating a selection of a location (i.e. sending components to location based content platform) (p. 0022);
obtaining a plurality of media content items (i.e. types of activities) previously shared via a computing device from the location (p. 0028-0030); and
causing a user interface to be presented that includes a chronological listing (i.e. time based importance) of the media content items shared from the location (p. 0027-0028).
Claims 2 and 18, Constantinides teaches The system of claim 1, wherein the media content items previously shared via the computing device from the location are media content items shared, by a first end-user of a social networking service, with one or more other end-users who are friends of the first end-user as memorialized in a social graph (i.e. map) maintained by the social networking service (i.e. friends are ranked within the map) (p. 0027-0028, 0033).
Claim 3, Constantinides teaches The system of claim 1, wherein selecting a media content item from the listing of the media content items shared from the location will cause the user interface to present the selected media content item (i.e. selecting a channel) (fig. 2; p. 0062).
Claims 4 and 19, Constantinides teaches The system of claim 2, wherein the location indicated by the location selection is a city, and each media content item of the plurality of media content items is a location check-in item (i.e. plurality of channels on a map), each location check-in item indicating a place in the city (i.e. city activites) at which an end-user shared a media content item that indicated the presence of the end-user at the place at the time the location check-in item was shared (i.e. locations can be zoomed in or out for any region, including a particular city) (p. 0028-0033, 0061).
Claims 5 and 20, Constantinides teaches The system of claim 2, wherein the location check-in item was shared as a result of the end-user selecting a place from a list of places located in the city (i.e. bars in the city), each place in the list of places proximate to the current location of the end-user at the time listed (i.e. a user selecting a post of interest near his location) (p. 0030-0033).
Claim 6, Constantinides teaches The system of claim 2, wherein the location indicated by the location selection is a city, and each media content item of the plurality of media content items is a custom location check-in item configured for selection by the end-user (i.e. bars around the city), each custom location check-in item indicating a place at which an end-user shared a media content item that indicated the current location of the end-user at the time the media content item was shared (i.e. times of posts are stored), wherein the media content item was shared as a result of the end-user selecting the check-in item from a selection of check-in items (i.e. sending components to location based content platform), each check-in item associated with a place proximate the current location of the end-user at the time selected (i.e. geographic location of client device) (p. 0022, 0030-0033, 0061, 0094).
Claim 9 is analyzed and interpreted as a method of claim 1.
Claim 10 is analyzed and interpreted as a method of claim 3.
Claim 11 is analyzed and interpreted as a method of claim 4.
Claim 12 is analyzed and interpreted as a method of claim 5.
Claim 13 is analyzed and interpreted as a method of claim 6.
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.
Claim(s) 7-8, 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Constantinides (US 2020/0236514) in view of Lippow et al. (US 2016/0171395).
Claim 7, Constantinides teaches The system of claim 1, further comprising:
prior to receiving, over the network and from the client computing device, data indicating a selection of a location, presenting via a user interface a list of countries from which one or more media content items have been shared (fig. 5).
Constantinides is silent regarding The system of claim 1, further comprising:
the user interface indicating for each country in the list of countries the number of media content items that were shared while an end-user was in the country, wherein the data indicating the selection of the location is data indicating a selection of a country from the list of countries.
Lippow teaches The system of claim 1, further comprising:
the user interface indicating for each country in the list of countries the number of media content items that were shared while an end-user was in the country (i.e. itinerary) of other users within that location), wherein the data indicating the selection of the location is data indicating a selection of a country from the list of countries (i.e. user can search for any country and a list will be provided) (p. 0028-0029).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have provided selectable locations a user as visited as taught by Lippow to the system of Goldscheider to allow for tracking of cities visited (p. 0028).
Claim 8, Constantinides teaches The system of claim 1, further comprising:
prior to receiving, over the network and from the client computing device, data indicating a selection of a location, presenting via a user interface a list of cities within a country from which one or more media content items have been shared (i.e. zooming into to a location),.
Constantinides is silent regarding The system of claim 1, further comprising:
the user interface indicating for each city in the list of cities the number of media content items that were shared while an end-user was in the city, wherein the data indicating the selection of the location is data indicating a selection of a city from the list of cities.
Lippow teaches The system of claim 1, further comprising:
the user interface indicating for each city in the list of cities the number of media content items that were shared while an end-user was in the city (i.e. itinerary), wherein the data indicating the selection of the location is data indicating a selection of a city from the list of cities (i.e. user can search for any city and a list will be provided) (p. 0028-0029).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have provided selectable locations a user as visited as taught by Lippow to the system of Goldscheider to allow for tracking of cities visited (p. 0028).
Claim 14 is analyzed and interpreted as a method of claim 7.
Claim 15 is analyzed and interpreted as a method of claim 8.
Conclusion
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20230045879 A1 TUNNELL; Andrew et al.
US 20200200557 A1 LI; Qing et al.
US 10681155 B1 Sanz; Gerard et al.
US 9986376 B1 Anima; Mario Ventura et al.
US 9916693 B1 Carr; James B. et al.
US 20180033023 A1 Pereira; Lisiane Cristine de Assis et al.
US 20170213253 A1 GOLDER; PETER NEWMAN
US 20170199897 A1 Frederick; Adriel Samuel et al.
US 20160366545 A1 Yamasaki; Erika et al.
US 9495783 B1 Samarasekera; Supun et al.
US 20160275458 A1 Meushar; Dana et al.
US 9443263 B1 Kim; Young Duck
US 20160057457 A1 CLEMENTS; JASON et al.
US 20130165153 A1 Turk; Douglas R. et al.
US 20120233043 A1 Goldscheider; Daniel
US 20110099142 A1 Karjalainen; Juha et al.
US 20100064239 A1 Crawford; David W. et al..
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUSHFIKH I ALAM whose telephone number is (571)270-1710. The examiner can normally be reached 1:00PM-9:00PM.
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, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached at 571-272-4195. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
MUSHFIKH I. ALAM
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2426
/MUSHFIKH I ALAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426 1/7/2026