Detailed Action
1. This Action is in response to Applicant's amendment filed on July 14, 2026. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the present application. This Action is made FINAL.
America Invents Act (AIA ) Information
2. 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 Arguments
3 Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1, 12 and 18 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
6. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
7. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
8. Claims 1-3, 7-10, 12-14, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pliner; Vadim (US 20150065173 A1), hereafter “Pliner,” in view of ZHANG C (WO 2019042259 A1), hereafter “ZHANG” and further in view of KIM; Sung Oog et al. (US 20210383934 A1), hereafter “KIM.”
Consider claim 1, Pliner discloses a method comprising: detecting a communication event between a device (fig. 1 #13a) and a network station (fig. 1 #17) (see fig. 4, par. 0055: “a communication by the mobile station 13 may be detected, for example, by mobile positioning system 32”); determining communication parameters for the communication events, the communication
parameters comprising information related to signals communicated between the device and the network station and positional information between the device and the network station (see par. 0055: “The communication may include a phone call, a text message, an email, or any suitable wireless signaling data. At step 404, responsive to the detected communication, mobile positioning information of the mobile station 13 may be determined based on the communication, for example, by mobile positioning system 32”); determining a set of points of interest (POI) that overlap the uncertainty sector, the overlap determination corresponding to at least a portion of a geographic area of a POI overlapping the geographic area of the uncertainty sector (see par 0056, par. 0058: “For example, in FIG. 5, three predetermined areas 507, 509 and 511 may be identified which overlap with current probable location 503. For example, predetermined area 507 may include region 513 within circle 503 and region 515 outside of circle 503. Predetermined area 509 may include region 517 within circle 503 and region 519 outside of circle 503” and par. 0059); determining, for each POI in the set of POIs, a visit probability for the device (see par. 0015: “To improve the precision of the associated events, the device location may be compared against nearby POIs, for example, to determine whether the mobile station user frequents a particular coffee shop or frequents a particular clothing store. Given the POI, for example, events may by further tailored to the mobile station user,” par, 0073: “For example, the location server 31 can consider a general popularity of a predetermined area. Accordingly, a coffee shop in a mall is more likely to be frequented than a golf store or a jewelry store”); and communicating, over a network, information related to the determined visit probability (see par. 0079: “At step 422, the mobile station location history may be updated responsive to the estimated probability (step 412) and/or responsive to the aggregate estimate (optional step 420). For example, the location server 31 may update the location history database 36 (FIG. 1) to indicate that the mobile station 13 is proximate the predetermined area”).
Pliner, however, does not particular refer to the following limitation taught by ZHANG, in analogous art; determining, based on the communication parameters, an uncertainty sector for the device, the uncertainty sector having a minimum radius, a maximum radius, and an angular extent, the uncertainty sector corresponding to a geographic area as defined by the communication parameters (see pages 7 and 8 “the base station determines the signal direction of the user terminal according to the information sent by the user terminal, and determines the relative distance between the base station and the user terminal; with the relative distance between the base station and the user terminal, the upward deviation N3% is the first radius, and the downward deviation N4% is The second radius constructs an annular sector (the annular sector formed as shown in FIG. 6), and finds the End Nodes in the annular sector, wherein N1, N2, N3 and N4 are both Greater than or equal to 0; The radius can be 1.6-1.8 km. In the illustrated annular sector area, the location information of the Internet of Things terminal device in the area is calculated on the average, and the location information of the user terminal is obtained..” Examiner’s Analysis: the annular sector is form by: bounded radially and angularly (e.g. uncertainty sector), the radius can be 1.6-1.8 km, which means that nominal communication-derived distance is expanded upward/downward to create two radial boundaries, N1+N2)° defines the angular extent between the two radial boundaries of the annular sector.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Pliner and have it include the teachings of ZHANG. The motivation would have been in order assist in determining a given geographical area (see pages 7 and 8).
Pliner as modified by ZHANG, however, does not particular refer to the following limitation taught by KIM, in analogous art; the communication enabling tracking of the device for a time period (see par. 0025 “can identify a personal identification code with a mobile device of a traveler upon arrival of the traveler at an international border, wherein the mobile device is equipped with wireless network connection; obtain traveler-specific information to associate with the personal identification code of the traveler; receive a diagnostic test result of the traveler to determine whether the traveler is infected; determine whether the traveler is subject to quarantine based on the traveler-specific information and the diagnostic test result; enable a location tracking system and a notification service during a quarantine period.” Examiner’s Analysis: upon receiving information that a mobile device (a traveler carrying a mobile device) is at a given location and in need of being tracked, enabling a location tracking system to track the device).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Pliner in view of ZHANG and have it include the teachings of KIM. The motivation would have been in order to keep track of a mobile device n for a given time period (see par. 0025).
Consider claim 2 in view of claim 1 above. Pliner further discloses setting a proximate location for the device based on the determined visit probability,
wherein the communication comprises information related to the proximate location (see par. 0060: “Referring to FIGS. 4 and 5, at step 410, responsive to the identified predetermined area(s), a probability distribution of the mobile station 13 proximate to the predetermined area(s) may be determined, based on the position 505 and the uncertainty of the position (i.e., precision P). At step 412, a probability that the mobile station 13 is proximate to the predetermined area may be determined from the probability distribution (step 410).”).
Consider claim 3 in view of claim 1 above. Pliner further discloses detecting a sequential set of communication events; determining an uncertainty sector for each communication event in the sequential set; determining, for each uncertainty sector, a plurality of component scores; and determining, based on an aggregate of the determined score for each uncertainty sector, a visit probability of the device for each POI in the set of POIs (see pars. 0017-0019).
Consider claim 7 in view of claim 1 above. Pliner further discloses determining, for each of the set of POIs, a set of component scores, the component scores
being metric values that are dependent on the communication parameters during the
communication event (see par. 0033).
Consider claim 8 in view of claim 7 above. Pliner further discloses wherein a component score in the set of component scores for a respective POI is incremented when at least one occurrence involves the respective POI overlapping at least a portion of the uncertainty sector (see pars. 0017 and 0033).
Consider claim 9 in view of claim 7 above. Pliner further discloses wherein a component score in the set of component scores is based on at least one of an area of the POI and a number of times the respective POI has communicated with a unique eNodeB during the communication event (see pars. 0017, 32 and 0033).
Consider claim 10 in view of claim 9 above. Pliner further discloses determining, based on an identifier of the network station of the communication event, a
weighting value; and applying the weighting value to the component score related to the unique eNodeBs for each POI in the set of POIs (see pars. 0019 and 32).
Consider claim 12, Pliner a discloses device (fig. 2 #13a) comprising: a processor (fig. 2 #112) configured to: detect a communication event between a device and a network station (fig. 1 #17) (see fig. 4, par. 0055: “a communication by the mobile station 13 may be detected, for example, by mobile positioning system 32”); determine communication parameters for the communication events, the communication parameters comprising information related to signals communicated between the device and the network station and positional information between the device and the network station (see par. 0055: “The communication may include a phone call, a text message, an email, or any suitable wireless signaling data. At step 404, responsive to the detected communication, mobile positioning information of the mobile station 13 may be determined based on the communication, for example, by mobile positioning system 32”); determine a set of points of interest (POI) that overlap the uncertainty sector, the overlap determination corresponding to at least a portion of a geographic area of a POI overlapping the geographic area of the uncertainty sector (see par 0056, par. 0058: “For example, in FIG. 5, three predetermined areas 507, 509 and 511 may be identified which overlap with current probable location 503. For example, predetermined area 507 may include region 513 within circle 503 and region 515 outside of circle 503. Predetermined area 509 may include region 517 within circle 503 and region 519 outside of circle 503” and par. 0059); determine, for each POI in the set of POIs, a visit probability for the device (see par. 0015: “To improve the precision of the associated events, the device location may be compared against nearby POIs, for example, to determine whether the mobile station user frequents a particular coffee shop or frequents a particular clothing store. Given the POI, for example, events may by further tailored to the mobile station user,” par, 0073: “For example, the location server 31 can consider a general popularity of a predetermined area. Accordingly, a coffee shop in a mall is more likely to be frequented than a golf store or a jewelry store”); and communicate, over a network, information related to the determined visit probability (see par. 0079: “At step 422, the mobile station location history may be updated responsive to the estimated probability (step 412) and/or responsive to the aggregate estimate (optional step 420). For example, the location server 31 may update the location history database 36 (FIG. 1) to indicate that the mobile station 13 is proximate the predetermined area”).
Pliner, however, does not particular refer to the following limitation taught by ZHANG, in analogous art; determine, based on the communication parameters, an uncertainty sector for the device, the uncertainty sector having a minimum radius, a maximum radius, and an angular extent, the uncertainty sector corresponding to a geographic area as defined by the communication parameters (see pages 7 and 8 “the base station determines the signal direction of the user terminal according to the information sent by the user terminal, and determines the relative distance between the base station and the user terminal; with the relative distance between the base station and the user terminal, the upward deviation N3% is the first radius, and the downward deviation N4% is The second radius constructs an annular sector (the annular sector formed as shown in FIG. 6), and finds the End Nodes in the annular sector, wherein N1, N2, N3 and N4 are both Greater than or equal to 0; The radius can be 1.6-1.8 km. In the illustrated annular sector area, the location information of the Internet of Things terminal device in the area is calculated on the average, and the location information of the user terminal is obtained..” Examiner’s Analysis: the annular sector is form by: bounded radially and angularly (e.g. uncertainty sector), the radius can be 1.6-1.8 km, which means that nominal communication-derived distance is expanded upward/downward to create two radial boundaries, N1+N2)° defines the angular extent between the two radial boundaries of the annular sector.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Pliner and have it include the teachings of ZHANG. The motivation would have been in order assist in determining a given geographical area (see pages 7 and 8).
Pliner, as modified by ZHANG, however, does not particular refer to the following limitation taught by KIM, in analogous art; the communication enabling tracking of the device for a time period (see par. 0025 “can identify a personal identification code with a mobile device of a traveler upon arrival of the traveler at an international border, wherein the mobile device is equipped with wireless network connection; obtain traveler-specific information to associate with the personal identification code of the traveler; receive a diagnostic test result of the traveler to determine whether the traveler is infected; determine whether the traveler is subject to quarantine based on the traveler-specific information and the diagnostic test result; enable a location tracking system and a notification service during a quarantine period.” Examiner’s Analysis: upon receiving information that a mobile device (a traveler carrying a mobile device) is at a given location and in need of being tracked, enabling a location tracking system to track the device).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Pliner in view of ZHANG and have it include the teachings of KIM. The motivation would have been in order to keep track of a mobile device n for a given time period (see par. 0025).
Consider claim 13 in view of claim 12 above. Pliner further discloses determine, for each of the set of POIs, a set of component scores, the component scores
being metric values that are dependent on the communication parameters during the
communication event, wherein a component score in the set of component scores for a respective POI is incremented when at least one occurrence involves the respective POI overlapping at least a portion of the uncertainty sector, and wherein a component score in the set of component scores is based on at least one of an area of the POI and a number of times the respective POI has communicated with a unique eNodeB during the communication event (see pars. 0017, 32 and 0033).
Consider claim 14 in view of claim 13 above. Pliner further discloses determine, based on an identifier of the network station of the communication event, a weighting value; and apply the weighting value to the component score related to the unique eNodeBs for each POI in the set of POIs. (see pars. 0019 and 32).
Consider claim 18, the subject matter recited in this claim has already been addressed in rejection to claim 1. Therefore, it has been analyzed and rejected based upon the rejection to claim 1. Furthermore, Pliner at paragraph 45 discloses computer readable medium and storage to carry out the tasks of claim 1 above.
Consider claim 19 in view of claim 18 above. Pliner further discloses determining, for each of the set of POIs, a set of component scores, the component scores being metric values that are dependent on the communication parameters during the communication event, wherein a component score in the set of component scores for a respective POI is incremented when at least one occurrence involves the respective POI overlapping the uncertainty sector, and wherein a component score in the set of component scores is based on an area of the POI, and wherein a component score in the set of component scores corresponds to a number of times the respective POI has communicated with a unique eNodeB during the communication event (see pars. 0017, 0019, 32 and 0033).
9. Claims 4, 11, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pliner in view of ZHANG and KIM as applied to claims 1, 3, 12 and 18 above, and further in view of SHINOJIMA; RYOTA et al. (US 20160143023 A1), hereafter “SHINOJIMA.”
Consider claim 4 in view of claim 3 above. Pliner, as modified by ZHANG and KIM discloses all the limitations that this claim depends upon, but does not particularly refer to the following limitation, as taught by SHINOJIMA, in analogous art: wherein the sequential set of communication events occur during a time period where the device is stationary (see fig. 11, par. 0085: “a processing sequence for termination of communication of the stationary terminal 20 will be described. FIGS. 11 and 12 are charts illustrating examples of processing sequences of the communication system according to the first embodiment. FIGS. 11 and 12 illustrate processing sequences of termination of communication of the stationary terminal 20”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Pliner, as modified by ZHANG and KIM and have it include the teachings of SHINOJIMA. The motivation would have been in order to detect active communication of a mobile terminal at a fixed location (see par. 0085).
Consider claim 11, the subject matter recited in this claim has already been addressed in rejection to claim 4. Therefore, it has been analyzed and rejected based upon the rejection to claim 4.
Consider claim 15 in view of claim 12 above. Pliner, as modified by ZHANG and KIM discloses determine an uncertainty sector for each communication event in the sequential set; determine, for each uncertainty sector, a plurality of component scores; and determine, based on an aggregate of the determined score for each uncertainty sector, a visit probability of the device for each POI in the set of POIs (see pars. 0017, 0019, 0032 and 0033).
Pliner, as modified by ZHANG and KIM, does not particularly refer to the following limitation, as taught by SHINOJIMA, in analogous art: detect a sequential set of communication events, wherein the sequential set of communication events occur during a time period where the device is stationary (see fig. 11, par. 0085: “a processing sequence for termination of communication of the stationary terminal 20 will be described. FIGS. 11 and 12 are charts illustrating examples of processing sequences of the communication system according to the first embodiment. FIGS. 11 and 12 illustrate processing sequences of termination of communication of the stationary terminal 20”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Pliner, as modified by ZHANG and KIM and have it include the teachings of SHINOJIMA. The motivation would have been in order to detect active communication of a mobile terminal at a fixed location (see par. 0085).
Consider claim 20, the subject matter recited in this claim has already been addressed in rejection to claim 15. Therefore, it has been analyzed and rejected based upon the rejection to claim 15.
Allowable Subject Matter
10. Claim(s) 5, 6, 16, 17 (is/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
11. The following prior arts are made of record and not relied upon, but is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20090036148 A1: discloses a user operating a calendar application on a wireless communications device, it is handy to be able to map the location of the meeting or event…
US 20220383251 A1: discloses processing system may track a location of a user on a journey in connection with an associated group of transport units having commenced a shipment…
US 20210200753 A1: discloses search results are determined in response to a location of each of the selected vendor dispensary and a customer location associated with the particular customer…
12. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Marcos Batista, whose telephone number is (571) 270-5209. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00am to 5:00pm.
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, Rafael Pérez-Gutiérrez can be reached at (571) 272-7915. 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.
/MARCOS BATISTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2642
August 17, 2026
Prosecution Insights