DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Claims
The rejections of claims 1-4, 8-12, 16, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been withdrawn in light of the Applicants’ amendments.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 7, 9, 13, 14, 15, and 17-20 have been amended. Thus, claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 6, 7, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, and 20 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The most similar art of record, Vega et al. [U.S. Patent Publication 2017/0134898], discloses a tracking device location manager in a tracking system used for tracking the location of a device (paragraphs 0032 and 0034 as well as figure 2, item 206), the display of a map on a user’s phone (paragraph 0036), a timeline shown on a user interface showing when and where a user has visited (paragraph 0045), and a request sent from a mobile device to a tracking server for information regarding a location history of a device (paragraph 0059 and figure 4). However, no art of record, discloses receiving, from the access control device, a message comprising an application ID of an application to communicate with the access control device and the information identifying the location of the access control device, wherein the application is hosted by the user device.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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(s) 1-4, 8-12, 16, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vega et al. [U.S. Patent Publication 2017/0134898] in view of Sato [U.S. Patent Publication 2002/0145506], and in further view of Chao et al [U.S. Patent Publication 2014/0266585]
With regard to claim 1, Vega et al. meets the limitations of:
a method comprising receiving, by a processor of a user device information identifying a location [a tracking device location manager in a tracking system used for tracking the location of a device (paragraphs 0032 and 0034 as well as figure 2, item 206)]
storing, on the user device, an identifier, and a timestamp referencing a current time [a timeline shown on a user interface showing when and where a user has visited (paragraph 0045)]
receiving, at the user device, a request of a user of the user device for a list of locations visited within a specified time window [a request sent from a mobile device to a tracking server for information regarding a location history of a device (paragraph 0059 and figure 4) where a timeline shown on a user interface showing when and where a user has visited (paragraph 0045)]
responsive to determining that the timestamp belongs to the specified time window, visually representing the identifier of the location via a graphical user interface (GUI) rendered on the user device [the display of a map on a user’s phone (paragraph 0036)]
However, Vega et al. fails to disclose of an access control device. In the field of access control systems, Sato teaches:
an access control device [a server storing the entry history of access control devices (paragraph 0013)]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the elements of Vega et al. and Sato to create a location tracking system wherein a user can access the entry access history of an access control device via his/her mobile device at a certain location for auditing and security purposes. However, the combination of Vega et al. and Sato fails to disclose of an authentication process between the user device and the access control device. In the field of access control systems, Chao et al. teaches:
an authentication process between the user device and the access control device [the user may enter the door without enabling secure local navigation using a module on the phone when mobile phone provides an identifier via NFC that the system may use to identify the phone as associated with an authorized user (paragraph 0058) where one with ordinary skill in the art recognizes a user being authorized requires an authentication process]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the elements of Vega et al., Sato, and Chao et al. to create a location tracking system wherein a user can access the entry access history of an access control device via his/her mobile device at a certain location for auditing and security purposes after an authentication process has occurred for security purposes wherein the motivation to combine is to provide a digital retracing of location of a device (Vega et al., paragraph 0001).
With regard to claim 2, Vega et al. meets the limitations of:
visually representing the identifier of the location via the GUI rendered on the user device comprises identifying a plurality of identifiers of locations stored on the user device with timestamps belonging to the specified time window [a request sent from a mobile device to a tracking server for information regarding a location history of a device (paragraph 0059 and figure 4) where a timeline shown on a user interface showing when and where a user has visited (paragraph 0045) and the display of a map on a user’s phone showing where the user has visited (paragraph 0036)]
displaying the GUI with the identified plurality of identifiers comprising the identifier of the location [a request sent from a mobile device to a tracking server for information regarding a location history of a device (paragraph 0059 and figure 4) where a timeline shown on a user interface showing when and where a user has visited (paragraph 0045) and the display of a map on a user’s phone showing where the user has visited (paragraph 0036)]
However, Vega et al. fails to disclose of an access control device. In the field of access control systems, Sato teaches:
an access control device [a server storing the entry history of access control devices (paragraph 0013)]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the elements of Vega et al., Sato, and Chao et al. to create a location tracking system wherein a user can access the entry access history of an access control device via his/her mobile device at a certain location for auditing and security purposes wherein the motivation to combine is to provide a digital retracing of location of a device (Vega et al., paragraph 0001).
With regard to claim 3, Vega et al. meets the limitation of:
the information identifying the location of the access control device comprises at least one of: an access control device ID, a serial number of the access control device, a latitude and longitude coordinate, or a geolocation code [a unique tracking device identifier associated with a device being tracked (paragraph 0027)]
With regard to claim 4, Vega et al. meets the limitation of:
updating location data of the user device to correspond to the information identifying the location [a request sent from a mobile device to a tracking server for information regarding a location history of a device (paragraph 0059 and figure 4) where a timeline shown on a user interface showing when and where a user has visited (paragraph 0045) and the display of a map on a user’s phone showing where the user has visited (paragraph 0036)]
However, Vega et al. fails to disclose of an access control device. In the field of access control systems, Sato teaches:
an access control device [a server storing the entry history of access control devices (paragraph 0013)]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the elements of Vega et al., Sato, and Chao et al. to create a location tracking system wherein a user can access the entry access history of an access control device via his/her mobile device at a certain location for auditing and security purposes wherein the motivation to combine is to provide a digital retracing of location of a device (Vega et al., paragraph 0001).
With regard to claim 9, Vega et al. meets the limitations of:
a memory device and a processing device coupled to the memory device, the processing device to perform operations [any of the devices or systems described herein can be implemented by one or more computing devices. A computing device can include a processor, a memory, a storage device, an I/O interface, and a communication interface, which may be communicatively coupled by way of communication infrastructure (paragraph 0066)]
receiving, by a user device information identifying a location of the access control device and storing, on the user device, an identifier of the location [a tracking device location manager in a tracking system used for tracking the location of a device (paragraphs 0032 and 0034 as well as figure 2, item 206)]
storing, on the user device, an identifier, and a timestamp referencing a current time [a timeline shown on a user interface showing when and where a user has visited (paragraph 0045)]
receiving, at the user device, a request of a user of the user device for a list of locations visited within a specified time window [a request sent from a mobile device to a tracking server for information regarding a location history of a device (paragraph 0059 and figure 4) where a timeline shown on a user interface showing when and where a user has visited (paragraph 0045)]
responsive to determining that the timestamp belongs to the specified time window, visually representing the identifier of the location via a graphical user interface (GUI) rendered on the user device [the display of a map on a user’s phone (paragraph 0036)]
However, Vega et al. fails to disclose of an access control device. In the field of access control systems, Sato teaches:
an access control device [a server storing the entry history of access control devices (paragraph 0013)]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the elements of Vega et al. and Sato to create a location tracking system wherein a user can access the entry access history of an access control device via his/her mobile device at a certain location for auditing and security purposes. However, the combination of Vega et al. and Sato fails to disclose of an authentication process between the user device and the access control device. In the field of access control systems, Chao et al. teaches:
an authentication process between the user device and the access control device [the user may enter the door without enabling secure local navigation using a module on the phone when mobile phone provides an identifier via NFC that the system may use to identify the phone as associated with an authorized user (paragraph 0058) where one with ordinary skill in the art recognizes a user being authorized requires an authentication process]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the elements of Vega et al., Sato, and Chao et al. to create a location tracking system wherein a user can access the entry access history of an access control device via his/her mobile device at a certain location for auditing and security purposes after an authentication process has occurred for security purposes wherein the motivation to combine is to provide a digital retracing of location of a device (Vega et al., paragraph 0001).
With regard to claim 10, Vega et al. meets the limitations of:
identifying a plurality of identifiers of locations stored on the user device with timestamps belonging to the specified time window [a request sent from a mobile device to a tracking server for information regarding a location history of a device (paragraph 0059 and figure 4) where a timeline shown on a user interface showing when and where a user has visited (paragraph 0045) and the display of a map on a user’s phone showing where the user has visited (paragraph 0036)]
displaying the GUI with the identified plurality of identifiers comprising the identifier of the location [a request sent from a mobile device to a tracking server for information regarding a location history of a device (paragraph 0059 and figure 4) where a timeline shown on a user interface showing when and where a user has visited (paragraph 0045) and the display of a map on a user’s phone showing where the user has visited (paragraph 0036)]
However, Vega et al. fails to disclose of an access control device. In the field of access control systems, Sato teaches:
an access control device [a server storing the entry history of access control devices (paragraph 0013)]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the elements of Vega et al., Sato, and Chao et al. to create a location tracking system wherein a user can access the entry access history of an access control device via his/her mobile device at a certain location for auditing and security purposes after an authentication process has occurred for security purposes wherein the motivation to combine is to provide a digital retracing of location of a device (Vega et al., paragraph 0001).
With regard to claim 11, Vega et al. meets the limitation of:
the information identifying the location of the access control device comprises at least one of: an access control device ID, a serial number of the access control device, a latitude and longitude coordinate, or a geolocation code [a unique tracking device identifier associated with a device being tracked (paragraph 0027)]
With regard to claim 12, Vega et al. meets the limitation of:
updating location data of the user device to correspond to the information identifying the location [a request sent from a mobile device to a tracking server for information regarding a location history of a device (paragraph 0059 and figure 4) where a timeline shown on a user interface showing when and where a user has visited (paragraph 0045) and the display of a map on a user’s phone showing where the user has visited (paragraph 0036)]
However, Vega et al. fails to disclose of an access control device. In the field of access control systems, Sato teaches:
an access control device [a server storing the entry history of access control devices (paragraph 0013)]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the elements of Vega et al. and Sato to create a location tracking system wherein a user can access the entry access history of an access control device via his/her mobile device at a certain location for auditing and security purposes wherein the motivation to combine is to provide a digital retracing of location of a device (Vega et al., paragraph 0001).
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the elements of Vega et al., Sato, and Chao et al. to create a location tracking system wherein a user can access the entry access history of an access control device via his/her mobile device at a certain location for auditing and security purposes after an authentication process has occurred for security purposes wherein the motivation to combine is to provide a digital retracing of location of a device (Vega et al., paragraph 0001).
With regard to claim 16, Vega et al. meets the limitation of:
sending the information identifying the location to a second application hosted by the user device [a mobile device having a tracking application for communicating with and locating a tracking device associated with the user (paragraph 0048)]
receiving, from the second application, additional data corresponding to the location [a mobile device having a tracking application for communicating with and locating a tracking device associated with the user (paragraph 0048)]
providing the additional data for display in the GUI rendered on the user device [a request sent from a mobile device to a tracking server for information regarding a location history of a device (paragraph 0059 and figure 4) where a timeline shown on a user interface showing when and where a user has visited (paragraph 0045) and the display of a map on a user’s phone showing where the user has visited (paragraph 0036)]
However, Vega et al. fails to disclose of an access control device. In the field of access control systems, Sato teaches:
an access control device [a server storing the entry history of access control devices (paragraph 0013)]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the elements of Vega et al. and Sato to create a location tracking system wherein a user can access the entry access history of an access control device via his/her mobile device at a certain location for auditing and security purposes wherein the motivation to combine is to provide a digital retracing of location of a device (Vega et al., paragraph 0001).
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the elements of Vega et al., Sato, and Chao et al. to create a location tracking system wherein a user can access the entry access history of an access control device via his/her mobile device at a certain location for auditing and security purposes after an authentication process has occurred for security purposes wherein the motivation to combine is to provide a digital retracing of location of a device (Vega et al., paragraph 0001).
With regard to claim 17, Vega et al. meets the limitations of:
receiving, by a user device information identifying a location of the access control device and storing, on the user device, an identifier of the location [a tracking device location manager in a tracking system used for tracking the location of a device (paragraphs 0032 and 0034 as well as figure 2, item 206)]
storing, on the user device, an identifier, and a timestamp referencing a current time [a timeline shown on a user interface showing when and where a user has visited (paragraph 0045)]
receiving, at the user device, a request of a user of the user device for a list of locations visited within a specified time window [a request sent from a mobile device to a tracking server for information regarding a location history of a device (paragraph 0059 and figure 4) where a timeline shown on a user interface showing when and where a user has visited (paragraph 0045)]
responsive to determining that the timestamp belongs to the specified time window, visually representing the identifier of the location via a graphical user interface (GUI) rendered on the user device [the display of a map on a user’s phone (paragraph 0036)]
However, Vega et al. fails to disclose of an access control device. In the field of access control systems, Sato teaches:
an access control device [a server storing the entry history of access control devices (paragraph 0013)]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the elements of Vega et al. and Sato to create a location tracking system wherein a user can access the entry access history of an access control device via his/her mobile device at a certain location for auditing and security purposes. However, the combination of Vega et al. and Sato fails to disclose of an authentication process between the user device and the access control device. In the field of access control systems, Chao et al. teaches:
an authentication process between the user device and the access control device [the user may enter the door without enabling secure local navigation using a module on the phone when mobile phone provides an identifier via NFC that the system may use to identify the phone as associated with an authorized user (paragraph 0058) where one with ordinary skill in the art recognizes a user being authorized requires an authentication process]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the elements of Vega et al., Sato, and Chao et al. to create a location tracking system wherein a user can access the entry access history of an access control device via his/her mobile device at a certain location for auditing and security purposes after an authentication process has occurred for security purposes wherein the motivation to combine is to provide a digital retracing of location of a device (Vega et al., paragraph 0001).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-4, 8-12, 16, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Chao et al [U.S. Patent Publication 2014/0266585].
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 PAMESHANAND MAHASE whose telephone number is (571) 270-7223. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday- Friday 8:00AM - 5:00PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Davetta Goins can be reached on 571-272-2957. 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.
/PAMESHANAND MAHASE/Examiner, Art Unit 2689
/DAVETTA W GOINS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights