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 .
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim 1, Applicant argues Independent claim 1 recites "causing a user interface to be presented that includes a chronological listing of the media content items shared from the location." Claims 9 and 16 recite corresponding limitations. The Office Action maps this limitation to paragraphs [0027]-[0028] of Constantinides, characterizing the reference as teaching "time based importance."
Constantinides does not disclose a chronological listing. Constantinides describes a social mapping platform that displays geo-tagged posts on a map and ranks them by a composite importance score. Paragraph [0047] of Constantinides states: "the system finds the most relevant posts for a given (geographical) area and lists them in order of importance." Paragraph [0055] confirms: "The system aggregates relevancy data to calculate a score (importance score) that determines which post appears first." The importance score is a multi-factor composite that incorporates the age of a post, the number of votes and comments, and user preference factors (paragraphs [0027]-[0028], [0047]). Time is one weighted input to this composite score. It is not the organizing principle.
A chronological listing and an importance-score ranking are different things. A chronological listing organizes items sequentially by date or time. An importance-score ranking organizes items by a computed relevance metric that factors in time, engagement, and user preferences. Constantinides expressly uses the latter.
In Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Constantinides clearly discloses:
“posts may be more relevant/important based on time. For example, if posts were made within the previous 1-2 hours they may be displayed on a screen more predominantly than posts that were made a day or two before. In some embodiments, posts that were made on the same day of the week (e.g., Friday), time of the year (e.g., Christmas)” (p. 0027).
Constantinides also discloses:
“In one embodiment, a history scrubber allows users to rewind back into time and see the map as it existed some place in the past. This gives the benefits of “real time” posting (what's happening now) while providing the ability to see historical information (what was happening then)” (p. 0086).
Although, Applicant cites a separate embodiment of Constantinides, it does not exclude time-based postings that is clearly envisioned. Posts are displayed based on “most recent” which is interpreted as a “chronological listing”.
Applicant further argues Independent claim 1 recites "receiving, over a network and from a client computing device, data indicating a selection of a location." The Office Action maps this limitation to paragraph [0022] of Constantinides, which describes mobile applications that "send and receive content in real time to components of the location-based content platform."
Paragraph [0022] of Constantinides describes a system in which mobile devices transmit contextual data, including the geographic location of the device, to the platform. Paragraphs [0036] and [0042]-[0043] elaborate that the system receives the device viewport (zoom level, pan location, screen dimensions) to determine which posts to display on the map. This is passive geolocation. The device transmits its current GPS coordinates and viewport parameters SO the server can render the appropriate map region. The user does not select a location.
In Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Constantinides clearly discloses users sending real-time updates of events at a location. This is interpreted as “data indicationg a selection of a location”. It is unclear to the Examiner how Applicant is interpreting this claim limtiation as distinguishing from this feature of Constantinides. Users must select a location in order to make a posting about the location.
Applicant further argues Independent claim 1 recites "obtaining a plurality of media content items previously shared via a computing device from the location." The Office Action maps this limitation to paragraphs [0028]-[0030] of Constantinides, characterized as "types of activities."
Paragraphs [0028]-[0030] of Constantinides describe categories of social activity associated with geographic areas: happy hours, clubs, restaurants, museums, and similar venues. These paragraphs discuss how the importance of a post may be based on "a type of activity, how relevant an activity is to a user" (paragraph [0030]). The reference describes a platform for discovering social content across a map. The content belongs to various users of the platform and is visualized spatially.
The specification describes these media content items in detail. Paragraphs [0049]-[0054] describe "location check-in items" stored in "a location database associated with" the user. Paragraph [0064] explains that when the user selects a location in the Passport interface, the system retrieves items from that user's location database and presents them: "the timeline selectable items 533_1, 533_2, 533_3 are organized in chronological order of locations in the location database associated with the first user" (Figure 5C).
Constantinides does not describe retrieving a specific user's own previously shared content from a selected location. Constantinides describes rendering geo-tagged social posts from various users across a map region based on the device viewport. The specification of this application describes a system that retrieves content items from "a location database associated with" a particular user (paragraph [0064]); Constantinides describes a system that aggregates and ranks content from multiple users across a geographic area (paragraphs [0047], [0055]).
In Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, “obtaining a plurality of media content items previous shared” is clearly disclosed by the map geo-location service of Constantinides. As discussed in the previous argument, users must select a location for making postings for the location, therefore Constantinides also dislocloses “items previously shared via a computing device from the location”. Secondly, “retrieving a specific user's own previously shared content from a selected location” is silent in the claims. Thirdly, Constantinides discloses a data store for storing location activity of users. (p. 0035, 0038). The specific argument, “a location database associated with a particular user” is silent within the claims.
Claims 2-6, 9-13, 16-20, Applicant argues that The rejection of dependent claims 2-6, 9-13, and 16-20 relies on the same deficient mapping of independent claims 1, 9, and 16. For the reasons stated above, Constantinides does not anticipate the independent claims, and the dependent claims are patentable at least for the same reasons.
Claims 4-6, 11-13, and 19-20 recite additional limitations directed to "location check-in items," each "indicating a place in the city 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." The specification describes location check-in items at Figure 5B, which illustrates a status interface in which the user selects a check-in status indicating the user's physical presence at a specific place. This concept does not exist in Constantinides. Constantinides describes geo-tagged social posts about venues. A post about a restaurant is not a check-in item indicating the physical presence of the user at the restaurant at the time of sharing.
In Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Creating a post about a location is interpreted as a “check-in” and therefore Constantinides teaches a “check-in service”. Figure 4 at least shows that a posting that indicates a place in the city where an end user shared a content item that indicated presence of the end user at a time when the posting was made. “this place is really busy tonight” is interpreted as the end user being at the location “Club Bailamos” at the time of the posting.
Claims 7-8, Applicant argues that Lippow describes a system for generating travel itineraries from anonymized, aggregated location data collected from a population of opted-in computing devices. Paragraph [0028] of Lippow explains that the system "annotate[s] the detected home and trip locations with entities such as points-of-interests, cities, regions, or countries" and can "aggregate statistics or other data from detected home or trip locations for a number of computing devices." Paragraph [0029] describes the system receiving queries such as "a seven day Italian vacation" and generating itinerary recommendations based on the actual trip patterns of other users.
Lippow teaches population-level trip analytics for travel planning. It does not teach displaying, for a specific end-user, the number of that user's own media content items shared from each country or city. The claimed limitation is a personal content history count (as illustrated in Figure 5D of this application, showing "United States, 17 Cities" and "Los Angeles, 12 Places" for the user's own check-in history). Anonymous aggregated statistics across a device population are a different feature serving a different purpose.
Claims 7 and 8 also recite that the data indicating the selection of the location is "data indicating a selection of a country from the list of countries" and "data indicating a selection of a city from the list of cities," respectively. Neither Constantinides nor Lippow teaches a pre-populated, selectable list of countries or cities associated with the user's own shared content. Constantinides displays a map. Lippow accepts search queries (e.g., "Italy for seven days"). Neither presents a structured, hierarchical list of user-visited locations as described in the specification and illustrated in Figure 5D of this application.
In Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, Constantinides discloses displaying a map that shows all of the posting indicating events for particular locations. Lippow clearly discloses a personal history of countries visited and also crowdsourced itinerary database based on the locations. The very specific “selectable list of countries or cities associated with the user's own shared content” argument presented in silent in the claims and even if it was in the claims that line is broad and maybe interpreted as a simply a history of a users previous destinations and recalling those destinations to create an itinerary. The aggregated process of building itinerary would include the specific end-users data also fed into the system, as clearly disclosed within Lippow.
Conclusion
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20130065613 A1 Stopel; Dima et al. – location based services
US 20120131048 A1 Forstall; Scott et al. – location based updates
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
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 5/18/2026
Prosecution Insights