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 .
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on November 29, 2023 has been considered by the examiner.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 6, 7, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, and 20 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.
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
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]
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 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. 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).
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. 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).
With regard to claim 8, 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).
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 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. 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).
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).
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).
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 wherein the motivation to combine is to provide a digital retracing of location of a device (Vega et al., paragraph 0001).
Priority
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Publication 2002/0155844 to distributed location based service system.
U.S. Patent Publication 2009/0098821 to Shinya discloses an information delivery apparatus and information delivery system.
U.S. Patent Publication 2018/0035264 to Farley et al. discloses a multi-device architecture for tracking device access.
Conclusion
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