DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to applicant's communication filed on 04/08/2026, wherein:
Claim 1-4, 6-14, and 16-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to pending claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection necessitated by IDS filed on 04/24/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1, 6-7, 13, 16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Blom et al. (US 20120136865 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Blom discloses an apparatus comprising:
a processor configured to acquire computer readable instructions stored in one or more memory devices and execute the instructions (¶0044, ¶0046, and ¶0050) to:
process a time-series of location data points for a target entity, wherein the time- series of location data points are received from a computing device associated with the target entity (Fig. 4 step 401, ¶0034, and ¶0049-0050);
determine one or more sessions (Fig. 4 step 403 – determining stay points) from the time-series of location data points by grouping one or more of the time-series of location data points (Fig. 4 step 403 and ¶0034-0036, ¶0050, and ¶0066-0071)
determine one or more clusters of sessions based on the one or more sessions and based on a physical proximity between the sessions (Fig. 4 step 407, ¶0034-0036, ¶0050, and ¶0066-0071 disclose determining stay region/anchor based on the stationary points)
determine one or more attributes associated with the target entity based on one or more of, the time-series of location data points, the one or more sessions, and the one or more clusters (¶0045, ¶0053, and ¶0058-0059); and
generate a profile of the target entity based on the one or more attributes associated with the target entity (¶0045, ¶0053, and ¶0058-0059).
Regarding claim 6, Blom discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to associate at least one of the location data points, the sessions, or the clusters of sessions with annotation information associated with a geographical location of the location data points, sessions, or clusters of sessions, and use the annotation information to determine the one or more attributes associated with the target entity (¶0120 discloses example that show percentage time user spending at a certain location such as 37% - i.e. attribute - at home – wherein the location naming provided by user input - annotated location).
Regarding claim 7, Blom discloses the apparatus of claim 6, wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to determine the one or more attributes associated with the target entity based on movements of the target entity between two or more clusters of sessions (¶0120 discloses example that show percentage time user spending at a certain location such as 37% and 12% at the gym).
Regarding claim 13, the scope and content of the claim recites a method performed by the apparatus of claim 1, therefore, being addressed as in claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, the scope and content of the claim recites a method performed by the apparatus of claim 6, therefore, being addressed as in claim 6.
Regarding claim 18, the scope and content of the claim recites a non-transitory computer readable medium having executable instructions for the apparatus of claim 1, therefore, being addressed as in claim 1.
Regarding claim 20, Bloom discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 18, wherein the executable instructions are further executable to cause the data processing apparatus to determine one or more clusters of sessions based on the one or more sessions and based on a physical proximity between the sessions; and determine the one or more attributes associated with the target entity based on the one or more sessions and the one or more clusters of sessions (¶0045, ¶0053, and ¶0058-0059).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 2, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blom et al. (US 20120136865 A1) in view of Yang et al. (US 20130252638 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Blom discloses the apparatus of claim 1, however, silent on further details of claim 2.
Yang discloses wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to determine an accuracy of the time-series of the location data points, and discard, based on the determined accuracy, one or more of the location data points in the time-series of the location data points (¶0089 – “An embodiment further includes filtering the incoming stream of location point information before continuously calculating the current centroid of the current user stay. At least some embodiments include filtering the stream of location points. For at least some embodiments, the filtering includes removing location data points that deviate to such a large extent (greater than a large threshold distance) that they cannot possibly be used for location analysis. Further, for at least some embodiments, the filtering includes removing redundant data. At least some embodiments include filtering (removing) low accuracy location point information. For at least some embodiments, the accuracy is obtained from mobile device. The location data points can be classified as high or low accuracy points”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before effective filing date of the claimed the invention, to modify the invention of Blom to incorporate data filtering from Yang because doing so would apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (MPEP §2141 -III) to filter unreliable data.
Regarding claim 14, the scope and content of the claim recites a method performed by the apparatus of claim 2, therefore, being addressed as in claim 2.
Regarding claim 19, the scope and content of the claim recites a non-transitory computer readable medium having executable instructions for the apparatus of claim 2, therefore, being addressed as in claim 2.
Claim 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blom et al. (US 20120136865 A1) in view of Kirmse et al. (US 8825383 B1).
Regarding claim 8, Blom discloses the apparatus of claim 7, however, silent on further details of claim 8
Kirmse discloses wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to determine a home location attribute based on, at least in part, statistical measures on the movements of the target entity and the annotation information associated with the target entity (abstract and col. 4 ln 54-59 –“ Once a user's location history is used to compute various clusters, a heuristic may be used to determine the user's home and work locations. A user is likely to be home at night. Thus, the user's points which occur at night may be filtered and clustered together. The largest cluster may represent the user's home location”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before effective filing date of the claimed the invention, to modify the invention of Blom to incorporate ability to determine location label based on location data from Kirmse because doing so would make use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way (MPEP §2141 -III) to extract pattern from location history.
Regarding claim 9, Blom discloses the apparatus of claim 1, however, silent on further details of claim 9.
Kirmse discloses wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to determine a home location attribute based on, at least in part, a likelihood that a particular location is associated with a residence (abstract and col. 4 ln 54-59 –“ Once a user's location history is used to compute various clusters, a heuristic may be used to determine the user's home and work locations. A user is likely to be home at night. Thus, the user's points which occur at night may be filtered and clustered together. The largest cluster may represent the user's home location”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before effective filing date of the claimed the invention, to modify the invention of Blom to incorporate ability to determine location label based on location data from Kirmse because doing so would make use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way (MPEP §2141 -III) to extract pattern from location history.
Regarding claim 10, Blom discloses the apparatus of claim 1, however, silent on details of claim 10.
Kirmse discloses wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to determine a home location attribute based on, at least in part, timestamps of the location data points associated with the target entity (abstract and col. 4 ln 54-59 –“ Once a user's location history is used to compute various clusters, a heuristic may be used to determine the user's home and work locations. A user is likely to be home at night. Thus, the user's points which occur at night may be filtered and clustered together. The largest cluster may represent the user's home location”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before effective filing date of the claimed the invention, to modify the invention of Blom to incorporate ability to determine location label based on location data from Kirmse because doing so would make use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way (MPEP §2141 -III) to extract pattern from location history.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blom et al. (US 20120136865 A1) in view of Meisels et al. (US 9552334 B1).
Regarding claim 11, Blom discloses the apparatus of claim 1, however, silent on further details of claim 11.
Meisels discloses wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to determine a predictive model based on the one or more attributes, wherein the predictive model is configured to predict a behavior of the target entity in a future (abstract and col. 51 ln 36-57 disclose predicting future behavior based on attribute).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before effective filing date of the claimed the invention, to modify the invention of Blom to incorporate (additional detail from secondary) from Meisels because doing so would apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (MPEP §2141 -III) to improve user experience by allowing people to make plans for the future, discover what to do and where to go for their present and future, discover content and commercial offerings for places in which they are or may be interested, and let them organize, share, recall and relive their history in useful and powerful ways.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3-4, 12, and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's submission of an information disclosure statement under 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the timing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) on 04/24/2026 prompted the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 609.04(b). 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUNG HONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7928. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm.
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, JINSONG HU, can be reached on (571) 272-3965. 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).
/DUNG HONG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2643
Prosecution Insights