DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This is a final action in reply to the response filed on December 23, 2025.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, 17 and 20 have been amended.
Claims 2, 9, 13 and 16 have been cancelled.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-12, 14-15 and 17-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 Amendments
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
The rejection of claims 1, 3-8, 10-12, 14-15 and 17-20 under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
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, 3-8, 10-12, 14-15 and 17-20 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.
As per claim 1, the transmit, correlate, display, generate and transmit steps describe the historical database generation and the update of the historical database, however, Examiner is not clear with the following steps of determining a history provider to meet the first user. When the output data is displayed on the first computing device, the first user received the information i.e., historic fact, based on his/her localization information. Then the first user add a user-supplied historic fact in order to update the historical database. Is the user-supplied historic fact based on the user own knowledge or from the history provider frequently asked questions or from meeting the history provider (the claims does not describe if the history provider accept the request)? Does the first user need to meet a history provider even thought he/she already got an answer about an historical fact based on his/her localization information? Why does the first user need a history provider when he/she is the one that provided a historical fact? Which user is the one that receives or need a historical fact or for that matter needs a history provider? the same rationale applies to claims 8, 12 and 15. 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, 3-8, 10-12, 14-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Per MPEP 2106.03 Eligibility Step 1: The Four Categories of Statutory Subject Matter [R-07.2022]. Step 1 is directed to determining whether or not the claims fall within a statutory class. Herein, claims 1, 3-8 and 10-11 falls within statutory class of a machine, claims 12 and 14 falls within statutory class of a process and claims 15 and 17-20 falls within statutory class of an article of manufacturing. Hence, the claims qualify as potentially eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C §101. With Step 1 being directed to a statutory category, MPEP 2106.04 Eligibility Step 2A: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception [R-07.2022].Step 2 is the two-part analysis from Alice Corp. (also called the Mayo test). The 2019 PEG makes two changes in Step 2A: It sets forth new procedure for Step 2A (called “revised Step 2A”) under which a claim is not “directed to” a judicial exception unless the claim satisfies a two-prong inquiry. The two-prong inquiry is as follows: Prong One: evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception. If claim recites an exception, then Prong Two: evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. The claim(s) recite(s) the following abstract idea indicated by non-boldface font and additional limitations indicated by boldface font:
Claim 1:
a processor; and a memory communicatively coupled to the processor, wherein the memory stores a plurality of instructions which, on execution, causes the processor to:
transmit, to a second computing device, localization information associated with a first computing device of a first user;
correlate, by the second computing device, the localization information of the first user with a historical data set to generate an output wherein the output data is associated with a historic fact, and wherein the output data is in an audio format, a video format, or textual format;
display, by the second computing device, the output data on a display screen of the first computing device;
generate, by the second computing device, a request for the first user to add a user-supplied historic fact;
transmit, by the first computing device, the user-supplied historic fact to the second computing device;
update, by the second computing device, the user-supplied historic fact in a historical database;
determine, by the second computing device, a history provider localized within a threshold distance from the first computing device, based on the localization information of the first computing device;
determine, by the second computing device, that the history provider provides one or more scheduled interviews based on a questionnaire comprising one or more preferences of the history provider,
wherein the processor is configured to facilitate the history provider to create the questionnaire related to the historical data set, the questionnaire comprising a list of frequently asked questions; and
transmit, by the second computing device, information associated with the history provider and a scheduling request link configured to notify the history provider of an interview request submitted by the first user to the first computing device.
Claim 8:
a processor; and a memory communicatively coupled to the processor, wherein the memory stores a plurality of instructions which, on execution, causes the processor to:
receive localization information associated with a first computing device indicative of a location of a first user;
receive a historical data set;
correlate the localization information of the first user with the historical data set to generate output data, wherein the output data is associated with the historic fact, and wherein the output data is in an audio format, a video format, or textual format;
transmit the historic fact to the first computing device; to display the historic fact on a display screen of the first computing device;
receive, by the second computing device, a user-supplied historic fact from the first user;
update the user-supplied historic fact in a historical database;
determine, based on the localization information of the first computing device, a history provider localized within a threshold distance from the first computing device;
determine, based on a questionnaire comprising one or more preferences of the history provider, that the history provider provides one or more scheduled interviews,
wherein the processor is configured to facilitate the history provider to create the questionnaire related to the historical data set, the questionnaire comprising a list of frequently asked questions; and,
transmit, to the first computing device, information associated with the history provider and a scheduling request link configured to notify the history provider of an interview request submitted by the first user.
Claim 12:
receiving, by a processor, localization information associated with a first computing device indicative of a location of a first user;
receiving, by the processor, a historical data set;
correlating, , by the processor, the localization information of the first user with the historical data set to generate output data, wherein the output data is associated with the historic fact, and wherein the output data is in an audio format, a video format, or textual format;
transmitting, by the processor, the historic fact to the first computing device;
receiving, by the processor, a user-supplied historic fact from the first user; and
updating, by the processor, the user-supplied historic fact in a historical database;
determining, by the processor, based on the localization information of the first computing device, a history provider localized within a threshold distance from the first computing device;
determining, by the processor, based on a questionnaire comprising one or more preferences of the history provider, that the history provider provides one or more scheduled interviews; and
transmitting, by the processor, to the first computing device, information associated with the history provider and a scheduling request link configured to notify the history provider of an interview request submitted by the first user.
Claim 15:
transmit, to a second computing device, localization information associated with a first computing device of a first user;
correlate, by the second computing device, the localization information of the first user with a historical data set to generate an output, wherein the output data is associated with the historic fact, and wherein the output data is in an audio format, a video format, or textual format;
display, by the second computing device, the output data on a display screen of the first computing device
generate, by the second computing device, a request for the first user to add a user-supplied historic fact;
transmit, by the first computing device, the user-supplied historic fact to the second computing device,
update, by the second computing device, the user-supplied historic fact in a historical database;
determine, by the second computing device, a history provider localized within a threshold distance from the first computing device, based on the localization information of the first computing device;
determine, by the second computing device, that the history provider provides one or more scheduled interviews based on a questionnaire comprising one or more preferences of the history provider,
wherein the processor is configured to facilitate the history provider to create the questionnaire related to the historical data set, the questionnaire comprising a list of frequently asked questions; and
transmit, by the second computing device, information associated with the history provider and a scheduling request link configured to notify the history provider of an interview request submitted by the first user to the first computing device.
Per Prong One of Step 2A, the identified recitation of an abstract idea falls within at least one of the Abstract Idea Groupings consisting of: Mathematical Concepts, Mental Processes, or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Particularly, the identified recitation falls within Mental Processes, concepts performed in the human mind including observations, evaluation, judgement and opinion and Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity such as commercial or legal interactions including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, business relations and managing personal behavior or relationship or interactions between people including social activities, teaching and following rules or instructions. Per Prong Two of Step 2A, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim as a whole does not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application. The processor, memory, first and second computing device and the historical database is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic computing and processing system. This processor, memory, first and second computing device and the historical database is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computing devices each comprising at least a processor, memory and display device. Further, processor configured to cause receiving/determining/transmitting data is mere instruction to apply an exception using a generic computer component which cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, this/these additional element(s) does/do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, since the claims are directed to the determined judicial exception in view of the two prongs of Step 2A, MPEP 2106.05 Eligibility Step 2B: Whether a Claim Amounts to Significantly More [R-07.2022] is directed to Step 2B. Therein, the additional elements and combinations therewith are examined in the claims to determine whether the claims as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. It is noted here that the additional elements are to be considered both individually and as an ordered combination. In this case, the claims each at most comprise additional elements of a processor, memory, first and second computing device and the historical database. Taken individually, the additional limitations each are generically recited and thus does not add significantly more to the respective limitations. Further, executing all the steps/functions by a user/service subsystem is mere instruction to apply an exception using a generic computer component which cannot provide an inventive concept in Step 2B (or, looking back to Step 2A, cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application). For further support, the Applicant’s specification supports the claims being directed to use of a generic processor, memory, first and second computing device and the historical database type structure at paragraphs 0063: “The processor 202 comprises suitable logic, circuitry, interfaces, and/or code that may be configured to execute a set of instructions stored in the memory 204. The processor 202 may be implemented based on several processor technologies known in the art. The processor 202 works in coordination with the transceiver 206, the historical data generation unit 208, and the input/output unit 210 to receive, store, manage and process historical data and facts. Examples of the processor 202 include but are not limited to, an X86-based processor, a Reduced Instruction Set Computing (RISC) processor, an Application-Specific Integrated Circuit (ASIC) processor, a Complex Instruction Set Computing (CISC) processor, and/or other processors.” Paragraph 0066: “The memory 204 comprises suitable logic, circuitry, interfaces, and/or code that may be configured to store the set of instructions, which are executed by the processor 202. In an embodiment, the memory 204 may be configured to store one or more programs, routines, or scripts that are executed in coordination with the processor 202. The memory 204 may be implemented based on a Random-Access Memory (RAM), a Read-Only Memory (ROM), a Hard Disk Drive (HDD), a storage server, and/or a Secure Digital (SD) card.” Paragraph 0053: “Examples of the first computing device 108, and the one or more second computing devices 110 108 may include but are not limited to, a personal computer, a laptop, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a mobile device, a tablet, or any other computing device.” And paragraph 0054: “ the database server 102 may refer to a computing device that may be configured to store audio, video, or textual information associated with interesting historic facts via crowdsourcing.” See also figure 1.
Taken as an ordered combination, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are directed to limitations referenced in Alice Corp. that are not enough to qualify as significantly more when recited in a claim with an abstract idea include, as a non-limiting or non-exclusive examples: i. Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)); ii. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); iii. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)); or v. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, e.g., a claim describing how the abstract idea of hedging could be used in the commodities and energy markets, as discussed in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 595, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) or a claim limiting the use of a mathematical formula to the petrochemical and oil-refining fields, as discussed in Parker v. Flook. The courts have recognized the following computer functions inter alia to be well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner: performing repetitive calculations; receiving, processing, and storing data (e.g., the present claims); electronically scanning or extracting data; electronic recordkeeping; automating mental tasks (e.g., process/machine for performing the present claims); and receiving or transmitting data (e.g., the present claims). The dependent claims 3-7, 10-11, 14 and 17-20 do not cure the above stated deficiencies, and in particular, the dependent claims further narrow the abstract idea without reciting additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception or providing significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 3, 10, 14 and 17 further limit the abstract idea to store and generate the historical data set in a plurality of formats comprising an audio format, a video format, and a textual format (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 4, 11 and 18 further limit the abstract idea that the first computing device comprises a Global Positioning System (GPS) mechanism to provide the localization information of the first user (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 5 and 19 further limit the abstract idea that the second computing device is a cloud-based server (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 6 and 20 further limit the abstract idea to facilitate the history provider to create a questionnaire related to the historical data set, wherein the cloud-based server is configured to store the questionnaire (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). And claims 7 further limit the abstract idea to facilitate the first user to select a year to retrieve the historic fact for that year (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). The identified recitation of the dependents claims falls within the Mental Processes, concepts performed in the human mind including observations, evaluation, judgement and opinion and Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity such as commercial or legal interactions including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, business relations and managing personal behavior or relationship or interactions between people including social activities, teaching and following rules or instructions. The GPS is used as a tool, in its ordinary capacity, to carry out the abstract idea. Since there are no elements or ordered combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, the claims are not eligible subject matter under 35 USC §101. Thus, viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 12/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicant argues that (1) “in the present application, amended independent claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea”; (2) “the independent claims 1, 8, 12, and 15 integrate a unique combination of features into a practical application. Applicant respectfully submits that the above-recited steps are not generic post-solution activity.” And (3) “independent claims 1, 8, 12, and 15 amount to "significantly more" than an abstract idea under Step 2B analysis of the Alice test.” (Remarks, pages 8-12).
With regard to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection, Applicant agues specifically the prior art (4) “Franco does not teach or suggest identifying/determining a "history provider," nor any form of subject-matter expert, nor any entity that supplies historical knowledge or interview services. Franco, identifies ordinary users who wish to meet for social purposes,”;(5) “Franco does not teach or suggest determination that any user provides "one or more scheduled interviews based on a questionnaire comprising one or more preferences of the history provider," as recited in amended independent claim 1.” (6) “Franco neither discloses nor implies that any user provides structured interviews, let alone "scheduled interviews," nor that questionnaire responses are evaluated to determine such availability.” (7) “Franco cannot possibly teach or suggest "transmit, by the second computing device, information associated with the history provider and a scheduling request link configured to notify the history provider of an interview request submitted by the first user to the first computing device,” (8) “The Applicant respectfully submits that there is no motivation for a person ordinary skilled in the art to combine Blumberg, Funk, and Franco.” And (9) “a person of ordinary skill would not have had a reason to combine Franco's social-meeting clustering with Blumberg's location-centric information retrieval and Funk's teachings to arrive at the claimed interview-scheduling functionality. In fact, this forms a clear case of impermissible hindsight, since the Office Action appears to combine the disclosure of Blumberg, Funk, and Franco, based on disclosure gleaned from Applicant's specification.”
In response to Applicant’s argument (1). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 recites a historical database generation, first by displaying an output data for the first user based on his/her localization information, where a second computing device, correlate the localization of the first user with historical data. Second, the second computing device request the first user to add a user-supplied historic fact in order to update the historical database. And Third, an history provider is localized by the second computing device, within a threshold distance from the localization information of the first computing device in order to notify the history provider of an interview request from the first user based on the history provider preferences as described in the Applicant's disclosure in paragraph 0008 " a historical database generation system and method to enhance the travel experience and generate historical data based on the geographical location of computing devices of travelers." Therefore, claim 1 recites an abstract idea falling within the Guidance's subject-matter grouping to the group of Mental Processes, concepts performed in the human mind including observations (localization information, historical data, user-supplied historic fact, scheduling request, from the history provider: scheduled interviews, preferences, questionnaire, faqs), evaluation (correlation of the historical data with localization information, threshold distance determination), judgement and opinion (output data, updating data, scheduling request link), Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity such as commercial or legal interactions including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, business relations and managing personal behavior or relationship or interactions between people including social activities, teaching and following rules or instructions such as scheduling an interview from the first user with a history provider and requesting historical facts based on the user location. The same rationale applies to claims 8, 12 and 15.
In response to Applicant’s argument (2). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Per Prong Two of Step 2A, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim as a whole does not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application. The processor, memory, first and second computing device and the historical database is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of receiving/determining/transmitting data. This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Considering the claims as a whole, these additional limitations merely add generic computer activities i.e., receiving/determining/transmitting. The recited processor, memory, first and second computing device and the historical database, merely links the abstract idea to a computer environment. In this way, the processor, memory, first and second computing device and the historical database involvement is merely a field of use which only contributes nominally and insignificantly to the recited method, which indicates absence of integration. Claim 1 uses the processor, memory, first and second computing device and the historical database as a tool, in its ordinary capacity, to carry out the abstract idea. As to this level of computer involvement, mere automation of manual processes using generic computers does not necessarily indicate a patent-eligible improvement in computer technology. Considered as a whole, the claimed method does not improve the functioning of the computer itself or any other technology or technical field. Further, a processor configured to cause receiving/determining/transmitting data to a device is mere instruction to apply an exception using a generic computer component which cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, this/these additional element(s) does/do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
In response to Applicant’s argument (3). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that the claims nor Applicant’s disclosure describes that the historical database is created and maintained in real-time (Remarks, page 12, 1st paragraph). In addition, executing all the operations (identifying/determining/carrying) by a processor is mere instruction to apply an exception using a generic computer component which cannot provide an inventive concept in Step 2B (or, looking back to Step 2A, cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application). For further support, the Applicant’s specification supports the claims being directed to use of a generic processor, memory, first and second computing device and the historical database type structure at paragraphs 0063: “The processor 202 comprises suitable logic, circuitry, interfaces, and/or code that may be configured to execute a set of instructions stored in the memory 204. The processor 202 may be implemented based on several processor technologies known in the art. The processor 202 works in coordination with the transceiver 206, the historical data generation unit 208, and the input/output unit 210 to receive, store, manage and process historical data and facts. Examples of the processor 202 include but are not limited to, an X86-based processor, a Reduced Instruction Set Computing (RISC) processor, an Application-Specific Integrated Circuit (ASIC) processor, a Complex Instruction Set Computing (CISC) processor, and/or other processors.” Paragraph 0066: “The memory 204 comprises suitable logic, circuitry, interfaces, and/or code that may be configured to store the set of instructions, which are executed by the processor 202. In an embodiment, the memory 204 may be configured to store one or more programs, routines, or scripts that are executed in coordination with the processor 202. The memory 204 may be implemented based on a Random-Access Memory (RAM), a Read-Only Memory (ROM), a Hard Disk Drive (HDD), a storage server, and/or a Secure Digital (SD) card.” Paragraph 0053: “Examples of the first computing device 108, and the one or more second computing devices 110 108 may include but are not limited to, a personal computer, a laptop, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a mobile device, a tablet, or any other computing device.” And paragraph 0054: “ the database server 102 may refer to a computing device that may be configured to store audio, video, or textual information associated with interesting historic facts via crowdsourcing.” See also figure 1. Taken as an ordered combination, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are directed to limitations referenced in Alice Corp. that are not enough to qualify as significantly more when recited in a claim with an abstract idea include, as a non-limiting or non-exclusive examples: i. Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)); ii. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); iii. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)); or v. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, e.g., a claim describing how the abstract idea of hedging could be used in the commodities and energy markets, as discussed in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 595, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) or a claim limiting the use of a mathematical formula to the petrochemical and oil-refining fields, as discussed in Parker v. Flook. The courts have recognized the following computer functions inter alia to be well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner: performing repetitive calculations; receiving, processing, and storing data (e.g., the present claims); electronically scanning or extracting data; electronic recordkeeping; automating mental tasks (e.g., process/machine for performing the present claims); and receiving or transmitting data (e.g., the present claims). Applicant's claims do not apply the additional elements in a manner beyond what has been recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional for computers and computing devices, the computer is merely used as a tool, there is no improvement to the field of computer technology. Employing well-known computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not add significantly more, similar how limiting the abstract idea in Flook to petrochemical and oil-refining industries was insufficient. The rejection is maintained.
In response to Applicant’s argument (4). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Franco describes that the member information includes at least ¶ 0070 “ interests, special interest groups or categories, affiliations, image, video, audio, and so on.” ¶ 0073: “The member account information could serve to indicate a default user location, as well as other default information used by clustering engine 206 to cluster users (e.g., age, gender, preferences, interests, etc.). The clustering engine 206 determines a subset of users from a plurality of users that have corresponding meeting purposes and are within the same geographic area, based on their user locations.” ¶ 0090: “a traveler can plan to attend a meeting at a particular destination city. So instead of just spending time in a hotel or touring the city alone, a traveler can schedule to meet with one or a group of people that share similar interests. For example, the traveler can schedule to meet people with a similar background, interests (e.g., sporting teams, politics, causes, etc.), or other common demographic.” And ¶ 0046: “As specific examples, a meeting and meeting location could be a […] a business networking meeting at conference, a gathering of art enthusiast at a museum,” Further, Franco teaches ¶ 0050: “the geographic clustering is used to determine two or more users from a plurality of users in the same geographic area that have the corresponding meeting purposes. The determination of the users is, therefore, based on the locations of the two or more users. The input of each user can include or be used to determine a user location used to perform the geographic clustering.” See also ¶ 0079: “The location module 210 can determine distances using GPS coordinates—i.e., the distance of a line connecting two points within the coordinate system. The math used for such determinations is well known.” Franco teaches that a member with similar preferences i.e., art enthusiast at a museum (history provider) is determined based on the localization information of another member (i.e., first user). See also ¶ 0018: “meeting history information of a user, the meeting history data including, for each meeting attended by the user, user identifications of other users that also attended each meeting” which describes members that met others members based on preferences, and meeting purposes (¶ 0045: “a meeting purpose can be a social, business, political, professional, financial, educational, cultural, spiritual, charitable, recreational, therapeutic, or athletic purpose—as examples. In more specific examples, a meeting purpose can include at least one of a date, a singles gathering, a friends gathering, a business meeting, a special event gathering, a social gathering, an event-oriented social gathering, a sports participation event, a sport viewing event, a political meeting or rally, a religious gathering, or a gathering of people sharing a hobby or an interest”). In a broadest reasonable interpretation to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, each member provides in their profiles preferences and availability by answering a questionnaire in order to determine meeting purposes, In a meeting purpose (i.e., gathering of people sharing a hobby or an interest) members ask and answer questions in order to learn or share knowledge. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., identifying a “history provider,” nor any form of subject-matter expert, nor any entity that supplies historical knowledge) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to Applicant’s argument (5). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Please see the response to Applicant’s argument (4). Further, Franco teaches in ¶ 0051: “the personal information, such as interests, background, traits and other characteristics, can be analyzed among potential meeting participants to determine an actual or potential match for a meeting” see also ¶ 0045. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a user offers professional or content-specific interview sessions) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to Applicant’s argument (6). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Please see the response to Applicant’s arguments (4) and (5). Franco also teaches in ¶ 0094: “Portions of GUI 600 facilitate the collection of user information that can be used for scheduling singles meetings (for this example) and/or for determining to which singles meeting(s) the user scheduled. […] Other types of constraints can be suggested and applied. For example, a group of buttons 608 can be included in GUI 600 so that the user can indicate the preferred time he or she would like to attend a clustering meeting. In this example, the user is given a choice of selecting to attend a meeting that starts at 6 PM or a meeting that starts at 8 PM. However, in some arrangements, GUI 600 can include a data field for the user to enter in a specific time or a suggested time that he or she would like to participate in a clustering meeting.” In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., user provides structures interviews […] that questionnaire responses are evaluated to determine such availability”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to Applicant’s argument (7). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Please see the response to Applicant’s arguments (4), (5) and (6). In addition, Franco teaches in ¶ 0053: “ Users can be clustered according to a shared meeting purpose and user locations.” See also ¶ 0083: “Special interest meetings can be 1 on 1 or group meetings, and can include meetings for hobbyists, alumni, sports enthusiast or fans, fan clubs, religious individuals, charities, and business functions.” And ¶ 0044: “The clustering system is configured to schedule one or more meetings between two or more users at a mutually accessible public or private location based on a common denominator (or meeting purpose) and the geographic locations or areas of those users, as well as the geographic location of the meeting place.” And ¶ 0084: “step 310, a confirmation is generated to be sent to the subset of users indicating the meeting time and location”.
In response to applicant’s argument (8) that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Blumberg teaches in the Abstract: “The position information may be relayed to an electronic device by providing location information to a database and receiving location-centric information at the electronic device.” Funk teaches in the Abstract “store data associated with the location, and receive a user-provided description regarding at least one of the location and the data associated with the location.” Franco teaches in ¶ 0050 “ the geographic clustering is used to determine two or more users from a plurality of users in the same geographic area that have the corresponding meeting purposes.” Blumberg, Funk and Franco analyze the user location information to provide information/data based on user request for information/data based on the user location as shown above and Franco “generating for presentation via a user device at least a portion of the meeting data, including one or more of the user identifications” Abstract, see also Figure 3. In response to applicant's argument that Franco is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, as explained above, Franco analyze the user location information to provide information/data based on the user requests (i.e., preferences/availability).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
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 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 1, 3-8, 10-12, 14-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blumberg et al., (US 2004/0110515 A1) hereinafter “Blumberg” in view of Funk (US 2005/0278371 A1) hereinafter “Funk”, Franco et al., (US 2007/0276719 A1) hereinafter “Franco” and Patrick Grieve, Creating an FAQ page? Here’s what you need to know, https://www.zendesk.com › blog › creating-an-faq-page, published on April 10, 2021, hereinafter “Grieve”.
Claim 1:
Blumberg as shown discloses a computer-implemented method, the method comprising:
a processor; and a memory communicatively coupled to the processor, wherein the memory stores a plurality of instructions which, on execution, causes the processor to: (¶ 0041: “one or more wireless devices 102 and may also include a computer 104” and ¶ 0044: “Wireless device 102 and computer 104 are each operable by a user 106, 108 and each include a user input/output, a display, and a memory.”);
transmit, to a second computing device, localization information associated with a first computing device of a first user; (Figure 2, see also ¶ 0082: “an operation 202, wireless device 102 may be connected to location-centric information system 110 via network 120 according to known methods. At an operation 204, the location of the user 106 (i.e., geographic position, latitude/longitude) is determined using one of the methods described above. At an operation 206, wireless device 102 provides the geographic position information to location-centric information system 110.”);
correlate, by the second computing device, the localization information of the first user with a historical data set to generate an output (¶ 0082: “an operation 202, wireless device 102 may be connected to location-centric information system 110 via network 120 according to known methods. At an operation 204, the location of the user 106 (i.e., geographic position, latitude/longitude) is determined using one of the methods described above. At an operation 206, wireless device 102 provides the geographic position information to location-centric information system 110.” ¶ 0017: “Location-centric information may also include information about the history of a particular location.”);
and wherein the output data is in an audio format, a video format, or textual format (¶ 0071: “The master database is embedded with base data and content in flat, 2D and 3D, voice, audio and video form.” See also ¶ 0079: “This system can be accessed from any communication device or computer, and the database may be queried by typing data into an electronic device, via audio, or interactively selecting particular data fields or hyperlinks to data fields from a video or map, for example.”);
display, by the second computing device, the output data on a display screen of the first computing device (¶ 0051: “The accessibility of these graphical elements of database 112 may be dependent upon the display capabilities of the receiving device” and ¶ 0093: “FIGS. 7-12 illustrate various exemplary displays on wireless device 102 hat may be viewed by user 106 when user 106 desires to search for a particular landmark (i.e., building, property, park, body of water, etc.).”);
Blumberg teaches in ¶ 0054: “A method of real-time updating of the database containing the location-centric information may include updating the database using data streamed from a third-party supplier of information.” Blumberg is silent with regard to the following limitations. However, Funk in an analogous art of information management based on geographical position for the purpose of providing the following limitations as shown does:
generate, by the second computing device, a request for the first user to add a user-supplied historic fact; (Figure 2 and ¶ 0044: “to blog geo-referential and user-provided data”, ¶ 0043: “the remote server 102 may function as a weblog or “blogging” server allowing users to frequent the server web site to read or browse through weblogs of other users, including users of the mobile device 101. As such, the personal observations, obtained content data, excerpts from other users/sources may be available from a single source.” And ¶ 0057: “the user may capture his location or a nearby landmark and associated data he wishes to share with the blogging community. For example, a bird watcher may encounter a rare species of bird while hiking and may wish to share this experience. In this regard, the bird watcher may capture an image of the bird, record the bird's singing, and download this information to the server along with a geographical reference.”);
transmit, by the first computing device, the user-supplied historic fact to the second computing device, (Figure 2 and ¶ 0043: “The remote server 102 may include a database 112 to store the geographical coordinates, user-defined descriptions, and content data, which may be maintained in terms of geo-reference, timestamp, and/or user-defined criteria.” And ¶ 0048: “data may be retrieved and filtered according to a user's personal preferences, including preferences based on cuisine accommodations, personal interests in history, architecture, nature, etc.”);
update, by the second computing device, the user-supplied historic fact in a historical database (¶0032: “During the data processing, the server application may input context data into a database (e.g., personal and/or shared location/event/thoughts database) and process stored description files, including, for example, the audio and/or video files generated during a dialog session.” And ¶ 0071: “After the content is temporarily stored, in step S56 the system prompts for an upload decision. If the user agrees, then in step S57 the data is uploaded.”);
Both Blumberg and Funk teach information management based on geographical position. Blumberg teaches in the Abstract: “The position information may be relayed to an electronic device by providing location information to a database and receiving location-centric information at the electronic device.” Funk teaches in the Abstract “store data associated with the location, and receive a user-provided description regarding at least one of the location and the data associated with the location.” Thus, they are deemed to be analogous references as they are reasonably pertinent to each other and are directed towards solving similar problems within the same environment. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Funk would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Funk to the teaching of Blumberg would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such as generate, by the second computing device, a request for the first user to add a user-supplied historic fact; transmit, by the first computing device, the user-supplied historic fact to the second computing device, update, by the second computing device, the user-supplied historic fact in a historical database into similar systems. Further, as noted by Funk “a virtual community repository and access of location-based information in which users exchange geo-referenced information based on their experiences.” (Funk ¶ 0013).
Blumberg teaches in ¶ 0042: “wireless device 102 is a hand-held electronic device including a global positioning system (GPS) locator whose location can be pinpointed using known means.” Funk teaches in ¶ 0025: “ a GPS component may be integrated with a camera, a cell phone, a personal data assistant (PDA), an on-board navigation system, a portable computer, and/or other wireless devices.” Blumberg in view of Funk is silent with regard to the following limitations. However, Franco in an analogous art of information management based on geographical position for the purpose of providing the following limitations as shown does
determine, by the second computing device, a history provider localized within a threshold distance from the first computing device, based on the localization information of the first computing device (¶ 0050: “the geographic clustering is used to determine two or more users from a plurality of users in the same geographic area that have the corresponding meeting purposes. The determination of the users is, therefore, based on the locations of the two or more users. The input of each user can include or be used to determine a user location used to perform the geographic clustering.” See also ¶ 0079: “The location module 210 can determine distances using GPS coordinates—i.e., the distance of a line connecting two points within the coordinate system. The math used for such determinations is well known.” Franco describes that the member information includes at least ¶ 0070 “ interests, special interest groups or categories, affiliations, image, video, audio, and so on.” And ¶ 0046: “As specific examples, a meeting and meeting location could be a […] a business networking meeting at conference, a gathering of art enthusiast at a museum,”);
determine, by the second computing device, that the history provider provides one or more scheduled interviews based on a questionnaire comprising one or more preferences of the history provider, (¶ 0051: “the personal information, such as interests, background, traits and other characteristics, can be analyzed among potential meeting participants to determine an actual or potential match for a meeting” see also ¶ 0045: “The concept of a meeting purpose can be broadly interpreted. At a high level, a meeting purpose can be a social, business, political, professional, financial, educational, cultural, spiritual, charitable, recreational, therapeutic, or athletic purpose—as examples. In more specific examples, a meeting purpose can include at least one of a date, a singles gathering, a friends gathering, a business meeting, a special event gathering, a social gathering, an event-oriented social gathering, a sports participation event, a sport viewing event, a political meeting or rally, a religious gathering, or a gathering of people sharing a hobby or an interest.”);
transmit, by the second computing device, information associated with the history provider and a scheduling request link configured to notify the history provider of an interview request submitted by the first user to the first computing device (¶ 0053: “ Users can be clustered according to a shared meeting purpose and user locations.” See also ¶ 0083: “Special interest meetings can be 1 on 1 or group meetings, and can include meetings for hobbyists, alumni, sports enthusiast or fans, fan clubs, religious individuals, charities, and business functions.” ¶ 0044: “The clustering system is configured to schedule one or more meetings between two or more users at a mutually accessible public or private location based on a common denominator (or meeting purpose) and the geographic locations or areas of those users, as well as the geographic location of the meeting place.” And ¶ 0084: “step 310, a confirmation is generated to be sent to the subset of users indicating the meeting time and location”);
Both Blumberg and Funk teach information management based on geographical position. Blumberg teaches in the Abstract: “The position information may be relayed to an electronic device by providing location information to a database and receiving location-centric information at the electronic device.” Franco teaches in ¶ 0050 “ the geographic clustering is used to determine two or more users from a plurality of users in the same geographic area that have the corresponding meeting purposes.” Thus, they are deemed to be analogous references as they are reasonably pertinent to each other and are directed towards solving similar problems within the same environment. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Franco would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Franco to the teaching of Blumberg in view of Funk would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such as to determine, by the second computing device, a history provider localized within a threshold distance from the first computing device, based on the localization information of the first computing device; determine, by the second computing device, that the history provider provides one or more scheduled interviews based on a questionnaire comprising one or more preferences of the history provider; and transmit, by the second computing device, information associated with the history provider and a scheduling request link configured to notify the history provider of an interview request submitted by the first user to the first computing device, into similar systems. Further, as noted by Franco “since clustering engine 206 preferably requires a relatively small amount of user interaction, a busy traveler does not need to expend a large amount of time and effort to participate in a meeting.” (Franco ¶ 0090).
Blumberg teaches in ¶ 0083: “In an operation 208, location-centric information system 110 may retrieve location-centric information from database 112 based on the geographic position information provided by wireless device 102. In one embodiment, location-centric information system 110 also retrieves a location identifier from database 112. A location identifier is an indicator associated with a particular landmark.” See also ¶ 0017: “Location-centric information may also include information about the history of a particular location.” And ¶ 0046: “the term “landmark” may be used to refer to any (1) physical structure such as a residence, apartment, apartment building, detached home, partially detached home, townhouse, condominium, co-op, building, etc.; (2) natural feature such as a body of water, glacier, canyon, cave, mountain, mountain range, etc.; (3) historical feature such as a monument, memorial, statue, battle field, historic location, park, trail, etc.; or (4) commercial feature such as a stadium, arena, school, shopping mall, strip mall, store, grocery store, parking garage, airport, hotel, inn, hostel, camp ground, car dealer, car rental establishment, hospital, etc.” Funk teaches in ¶ 0048: “data may be retrieved and filtered according to a user's personal preferences, including preferences based on cuisine accommodations, personal interests in history, architecture, nature, etc.” Franco teaches in ¶ 0051: “the personal information, such as interests, background, traits and other characteristics, can be analyzed among potential meeting participants to determine an actual or potential match for a meeting”. Blumberg in view of Funk and Franco is silent with regard to the following limitations. However, Grieve in an analogous art of accessing information management for the purpose of providing the following limitations as shown does:
wherein the processor is configured to facilitate the history provider to create the questionnaire related to the historical data set, the questionnaire comprising a list of frequently asked questions; and (pages 1-6 describe how to create a list of frequently asked questions)
Both Blumberg and Grieve teach accessing information management. Blumberg teaches in the ¶ 0099: “allow user 106 to retrieve information about a particular landmark near which they are located.” Grieve teaches in page 2 “An ‘FAQ page’ is one of the simplest forms of self-service and can be a great first step in building out a full help center.” Thus, they are deemed to be analogous references as they are reasonably pertinent to each other and are directed towards solving similar problems within the same environment. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Grieve would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Grieve to the teaching of Blumberg in view of Funk and Franco would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such as to facilitate the history provider to create the questionnaire related to the historical data set, the questionnaire comprising a list of frequently asked questions into similar systems. Further, as noted by Grieve “For customers, the benefits of an FAQ page are obvious. Instead of taking the time to call or message customer service, they can get an immediate answer to their question—ideally, it’s as quick and convenient as a Google search. This time-saving component is a big benefit for companies, too.” (Grieve, page 3).
Claims 8, 12 and 15:
The limitations of claims 8 (Figure 1), 12 (Figure 1) and 15 (¶ 0084: “ stored on a computer readable medium”) encompass substantially the same scope as claim 1. Accordingly, those similar limitations are rejected in substantially the same manner as claim 1, as described above.
Claims 8 and 12:
The following limitations differs from claim 1:
receive a historical data set; receiving, by the processor, a historical data set; (¶ 0083: “In an operation 208, location-centric information system 110 may retrieve location-centric information from database 112 based on the geographic position information provided by wireless device 102. In one embodiment, location-centric information system 110 also retrieves a location identifier from database 112. A location identifier is an indicator associated with a particular landmark.” See also ¶ 0017: “Location-centric information may also include information about the history of a particular location.” And ¶ 0046: “the term “landmark” may be used to refer to any (1) physical structure such as a residence, apartment, apartment building, detached home, partially detached home, townhouse, condominium, co-op, building, etc.; (2) natural feature such as a body of water, glacier, canyon, cave, mountain, mountain range, etc.; (3) historical feature such as a monument, memorial, statue, battle field, historic location, park, trail, etc.; or (4) commercial feature such as a stadium, arena, school, shopping mall, strip mall, store, grocery store, parking garage, airport, hotel, inn, hostel, camp ground, car dealer, car rental establishment, hospital, etc.”)
Claim 3:
Blumberg as shown discloses the following limitations:
wherein the processor is configured to store and generate the historical data set in a plurality of formats comprising the audio format, the video format, and the textual format (¶ 0071: “The master database is embedded with base data and content in flat, 2D and 3D, voice, audio and video form.” See also ¶ 0079: “This system can be accessed from any communication device or computer, and the database may be queried by typing data into an electronic device, via audio, or interactively selecting particular data fields or hyperlinks to data fields from a video or map, for example.”);
Claims 10, 14 and 17:
The limitations of claims 10, 14 and 17 encompasses substantially the same scope as claim 3. Accordingly, those similar limitations are rejected in substantially the same manner as claim 3, as described above.
Claim 4:
Blumberg as shown discloses the following limitations:
wherein the first computing device comprises a Global Positioning System (GPS) mechanism to provide the localization information of the first user (¶ 0042: “wireless device 102 is a hand-held electronic device including a global positioning system (GPS) locator whose location can be pinpointed using known means.”);
Claims 11 and 18:
The limitations of claim 11 and 18 encompass substantially the same scope as claim 4. Accordingly, those similar limitations are rejected in substantially the same manner as claim 4, as described above.
Claim 5:
Blumberg teaches a network in figure 1. Blumberg is silent with regard to the following limitations. However, Funk in an analogous art of information management based on geographical position for the purpose of providing the following limitations as shown does:
wherein the second computing device is a cloud-based server (¶ 0043: “The remote server 102 may include a database 112 to store the geographical coordinates, user-defined descriptions, and content data, which may be maintained in terms of geo-reference, timestamp, and/or user-defined criteria.”);
Both Blumberg and Funk teach information management based on geographical position. Blumberg teaches in the Abstract: “The position information may be relayed to an electronic device by providing location information to a database and receiving location-centric information at the electronic device.” Funk teaches in the Abstract “store data associated with the location, and receive a user-provided description regarding at least one of the location and the data associated with the location.” Thus, they are deemed to be analogous references as they are reasonably pertinent to each other and are directed towards solving similar problems within the same environment. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Funk would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Funk to the teaching of Blumberg would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such as wherein the second computing device is a cloud-based server into similar systems. Further, as noted by Funk “a virtual community repository and access of location-based information in which users exchange geo-referenced information based on their experiences.” (Funk ¶ 0013).
Claim 19:
The limitations of claim 19 encompasses substantially the same scope as claim 5. Accordingly, those similar limitations are rejected in substantially the same manner as claim 5, as described above.
Claim 6:
Blumberg teaches a network in ¶ 0017: “Location-centric information may also include information about the history of a particular location. Generally, any type of information about a particular location may be retrieved from the database of location-centric information based on a location of the electronic device.” Blumberg is silent with regard to the following limitations. However, Funk in an analogous art of information management based on geographical position for the purpose of providing the following limitations as shown does:
wherein the cloud- based server is configured to store the questionnaire (¶ 0013: “An exemplary geo-referential blogging server may provide a virtual community repository and access of location-based information in which users exchange geo-referenced information based on their experiences. In this regard, the geo-referential information and a community-based application may be provided to interactively store and share user experiences and/or information about any geographic entity, including, for example, a hiking trail, a point of interest (e.g. restaurant, gas station), a landmark, a road feature (e.g. highway, intersection), or a temporal snapshot (e.g. social event), etc..” See also ¶ 0015: “The aggregated data, user experience, tidbits of user knowledge, and other seamlessly adapted content may be simultaneously available to other users upon their query.” And ¶ 0043: “the personal observations, obtained content data, excerpts from other users/sources may be available from a single source”);
Both Blumberg and Funk teach information management based on geographical position. Blumberg teaches in the Abstract: “The position information may be relayed to an electronic device by providing location information to a database and receiving location-centric information at the electronic device.” Funk teaches in the Abstract “store data associated with the location, and receive a user-provided description regarding at least one of the location and the data associated with the location.” Thus, they are deemed to be analogous references as they are reasonably pertinent to each other and are directed towards solving similar problems within the same environment. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Funk would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Funk to the teaching of Blumberg would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such as wherein the cloud- based server is configured to store the questionnaire into similar systems. Further, as noted by Funk “a virtual community repository and access of location-based information in which users exchange geo-referenced information based on their experiences.” (Funk ¶ 0013).
Claim 20:
The limitations of claim 20 encompasses substantially the same scope as claim 6. Accordingly, those similar limitations are rejected in substantially the same manner as claim 6, as described above.
Claim 7:
Blumberg teaches a network in ¶ 0065: “the location description information, the information entered into the database may also include a time or time/date stamp, which can allow a user to access both location-centric and time-based information from the database based on their location.” Blumberg is silent with regard to the following limitations. However, Funk in an analogous art of information management based on geographical position for the purpose of providing the following limitations as shown does:
wherein the processor is configured to facilitate the first user to select a year to retrieve the historic fact for that year (¶ 0015: “The aggregated data, user experience, tidbits of user knowledge, and other seamlessly adapted content may be simultaneously available to other users upon their query.” See also ¶ 0043: “The remote server 102 may include a database 112 to store the geographical coordinates, user-defined descriptions, and content data, which may be maintained in terms of geo-reference, timestamp, and/or user-defined criteria. […] the personal observations, obtained content data, excerpts from other users/sources may be available from a single source” and ¶ 0047: “data of various formats may be retrieved, stored, manipulated, and adapted in association with a database that manages the data based on spatial, temporal, and/or structured entries. In particular, the various data formats may include text, audio, images, and video, which may be managed in the database according to a geographic location, a time period, a user preferential order, a subjective evaluation criteria, a survey rating, and/or an advisory”);
Both Blumberg and Funk teach information management based on geographical position. Blumberg teaches in the Abstract: “The position information may be relayed to an electronic device by providing location information to a database and receiving location-centric information at the electronic device.” Funk teaches in the Abstract “store data associated with the location, and receive a user-provided description regarding at least one of the location and the data associated with the location.” Thus, they are deemed to be analogous references as they are reasonably pertinent to each other and are directed towards solving similar problems within the same environment. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Funk would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Funk to the teaching of Blumberg would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such as wherein the processor is configured to facilitate the first user to select a year to retrieve the historic fact for that year into similar systems. Further, as noted by Funk “a virtual community repository and access of location-based information in which users exchange geo-referenced information based on their experiences.” (Funk ¶ 0013).
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 NADJA CHONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3939. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 2:00 pm ET, 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, RUTAO WU can be reached on 571.272.6045. 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.
/NADJA N CHONG CRUZ/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623