DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is responsive to the communication(s) filed on 02/06/2024. Claims 1-4, of which claims 1 is independent, were pending in this application and are considered below.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of the Applicant's claim for foreign priority filed in REPUBLIC OF KOREA on 07/26/2023 under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The references cited on the information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on X have been considered and made of record by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 USC § 35 USC § 112, second paragraph
Examiner Note: The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA ) made technical changes to 35 U.S.C. § 112 that only apply to patent applications filed on or after on September 16, 2012.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention
Regarding claim 1, claim recites the limitation “acquiring tag location information from the received GPS signal” (line 6 of page 1), which is vague and indefinite, because it is not clear whether the acquired tag location information is the location information of the claimed object tag or the location information of a different tag, which leaves the reader in doubt as to the meaning of the technical feature to which it refers to, thereby rendering the definition of the subject matter of the claim indefinite. It is however noted that claim later recites: “the tag location information of the object tag” (lines 7 and 14 of page 2). It is recommended to replace the limitation with phrase --acquiring tag location information of the object tag from the received GPS signal --.
Claims 1 recites: “transmitting … to the outside” (lines 7 and 12 of page 1 - truncated). There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the outside” in the claim. Furthermore, the limitation “the outside” is vague and indefinite. One of the ordinary skills in the art does understands that a Bluetooth transmitter enables the tags to communicate with a paired device. It sends a signal that the tag can detect, allowing for real-time location updates and tracking capabilities. The transmitter's role is to ensure that the tags can accurately identify and locate the items they are attached to, making them a valuable tool for asset tracking and personal item management. However, it is not clear what term “outside” is referring to which leaves the reader in doubt as to the meaning of the technical feature to which it refers to, thereby rendering the definition of the subject matter of the claim indefinite.
Claims 1 recites the limitation “store tag location information” (line 22 of page 1), which is vague because it is not clear whether it is referring to the same as or different from already recited limitation “tag location information” (line 5 of page 1). It is recommended to replace the limitation with phrase --store the tag location information--.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the location of the object tag” (line 1 of page 2). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is recommended to replace the limitation with phrase --the tag location information of the object tag--.
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “a second user terminal configured for … receiving the tag location information from the server” (line 24 of page 1 to line 2 of page 2 - truncated), which is vague and indefinite, because it suggests that the server transmitting the tag location information. However, claim earlier recites: “the server configured for … transmitting a registration request signal including the received tag location information” (line 14 of page 1). Claim 1 later recites: “a database unit configured for receiving the registration request signal from the server, extracting the tag location information from the registration request signal” (line 18 of page 1), which suggest that the tag location information must be extracted from the received registration request signal. It is recommended to replace the limitation with phrase --a second user terminal configured for … receiving the registration request signal from the server and extracting the tag location information from the registration request signal--.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein the server further comprises a control unit configured to receive … user information indicative of a user of the first user terminal that shares the tag location information of the object tag and a user of the second user terminal that receives sharing of the tag location information of the object tag and store in a storage unit,” (line 3-10 of page 2 – truncated), which terms “the first user terminal that shares the tag location information of the object tag” makes it vague and indefinite, because the claim earlier recites: “a second user terminal configured … to share the location of the object tag” (line 24 of page 1 to line 2 of page 2 – truncated).
Claim recites the limitation “a user of the second user terminal that receives sharing of the tag location information of the object tag” (lines 8-10 of page 2), which term “receives sharing of the tag location information” makes it vague and indefinite. It is not clear what term “receives sharing” is referring to which leaves the reader in doubt as to the meaning of the technical feature to which it refers to, thereby rendering the definition of the subject matter of the claim indefinite. It is recommended to replace the limitation with phrase --a user of the second user terminal that receives the shared tag location information of the object tag--.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the information about users sharing the tag location information of the object tag, and the information about the users receiving the shared tag location information of the object tag and transmit the registration request signal to the database unit” (lines 15-18 of page 2). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is recommended to replace the limitation with phrase --information about users sharing the tag location information of the object tag, and information about users receiving the shared tag location information of the object tag--.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the information about users sharing the tag location information of the object tag” (lines 23-24 of page 2), which is vague because it is not clear whether it is referring to the same as or different from already recited limitation “users” (line 15 of page 2). It is recommended to replace the limitation with phrase --the information about the users sharing the tag location information of the object tag--.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the tag” (lines 4-5, 17 and 21 of page 3). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is recommended to replace the limitation with phrase --the object tag--.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the object” (line 8 of page 3). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is recommended to replace the limitation with phrase --the object tag--.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a screen” (line 12 of page 3), which is vague because it is not clear whether it is referring to the same as or different from already recited limitation “a screen” (line 10 of page 3). It is recommended to replace the limitation with phrase --the screen--.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “select a friend to be shared from the screen, confirm the presence of the added tag when checking the list of tag in the mobile app of the second user terminal with which the location of the tag is shared, confirm the location of the shared tag when the added tag is clicked” (line 13-18 of page 3), which is vague and indefinite, because there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitations “the added tag” (lines 15 and 18 of page 3); “the list of tag” (line 15 of page 3); “the mobile app” (line 15 of page 3 ) in the claim. Furthermore, it is not clear what the difference is between “the list of tag in the mobile app” (line 15 of page 3 ).
Regarding claims 2-4, claims recite the limitation “The tag-based object location tracking system of claim 1” (line 1 of claims 2-4). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is recommended to replace the limitation with phrase --The tag-based location tracking system of claim 1--.
Regarding claim 2, claims recites the limitation “tag sharing table” (line 2 of page 4), which is vague because it is not clear whether it is the same as or different from already recited limitation “tag sharing table” (line 21 of page 1 in claim 1). It is recommended to replace the limitation with phrase --the tag sharing table--.
Regarding claim 3, claim recites the limitation “the SHAREFRIEND table” (lines 10 and 14 of page 4). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is recommended to replace the limitation “the SHAREFRIEND table, which is the tag sharing table,” (lines 10-11 of page 4) and the limitation “the SHAREFRIEND table” with the phrase --the tag sharing table--.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the app of a user” (line 17 of page 4). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the control unit is configured to … share the tag location information with the second user terminal to be shared” (lines 13-16 of page 4 - truncated), which term “share … to be shared” makes it vague and indefinite. It is not clear what term “share … to be shared” is referring to which leaves the reader in doubt as to the meaning of the technical feature to which it refers to, thereby rendering the definition of the subject matter of the claim indefinite.
Regarding claim 4, claim recites the limitation “the tag list” (line 22 of page 4). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “tag location information” (line 26 of page 4), which is vague and indefinite, because it is not clear whether it is referring to the tag location information of the object tag or the tag location information corresponding to the control signal, which leaves the reader in doubt as to the meaning of the technical feature to which it refers to, thereby rendering the definition of the subject matter of the claim indefinite. It is recommended to replace the limitation with phrase --the tag location information corresponding to the control signal--.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the user interface” (line 1 of page 5). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is recommended to replace the limitation with phrase --a user interface --.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office action.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
Examiner's note: Reliance on the US Pre-Grant Publication (PG PUB) of this application, which is not part of the image file wrapper of the patent application, in the prosecution is improper. All references in the reply to the office action are to be made to the latest version on record of the patent application as filed not as published. The latest version on record of the patent application means the patent application as originally filed and modified by previously entered amendment(s).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Chatterjee (US 2011/0142016 A1) discloses: “invoke a "Find Friend Now" function of the "Buddy Finder" feature on mobile device 104 ... Upon invocation of the function, mobile device 104 can actively send inquiries about matches to nearby mobile devices and to server 112. Mobile device 104 can identify nearby mobile devices (e.g., mobile devices 106 and 108)” (¶[0019] - truncated)
Sharp et al. (US 2010/0279652 A1) disclose: “FIG. 8 shows a flow diagram describing an exemplary process for executing a locate command by a mobile device. The mobile device can receive a locate command requesting the present location of the mobile device (805)” (¶[0078]); “In response to receiving the locate command, the mobile device can determine its present location (810).” (¶[0079]); “the mobile device can determine the time at which the locate command was received. Further, the mobile device can determine the time at which the locate command was processed to determine the location information.” (¶[0080]); “Once the mobile device has determined the location information, the mobile device can publish a result message to the result topic (820) ... the accuracy of the location data can be at least partially assessed based on the reported time data.” (¶[0081]); “A map 905 can be presented in the user interface 900, depicting a region that includes the location reported by the mobile device in response to a locate command.” (¶[0082]): “The user interface 900 also can include an address field 910 that displays an address corresponding to the location reported by the mobile device.” (¶[0083])
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nader Bolourchi whose telephone number is (571) 272-8064. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30 to 4:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hannah S. Wang, SPE can be reached on (571) 272-9018. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Interviews are available via telephone and video conferencing using a USPTO web-based Video Conferencing and Collaboration Tool. To schedule an interview, Applicants are encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
Communications via Internet e-mail are at the discretion of the applicant. See MPEP § 502.03. Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via Internet e-mail to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122 and will not initiate communications with applicants via Internet e-mail. The internet authorization must be submitted on a separate paper to be entitled to acceptance in accordance with 37 CFR 1.4(c). The separate paper will facilitate processing and avoid confusion. The written authorization may be submitted via EFS-Web, mail, or fax. It cannot be submitted by email.
The following is a sample authorization form, which may be used by applicant:
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
A written authorization may be withdrawn by filing a signed paper clearly identifying the original authorization. The following is a sample form which may be used by applicant to withdraw the authorization:
“The authorization given on______, to the USPTO to communicate with any practitioner of record or acting in a representative capacity in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application via video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail is hereby withdrawn.”
To facilitate processing of the internet communication authorization or withdraw of authorization, the Office strongly encourages use of Form PTO/SB/439, filed via EFS-Web. The Form is available at:
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf.
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.
/Nader Bolourchi/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631