DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the initial filing filed on May 8, 2024 Claims 1-38 havebeen examined in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 5/8/2024 have been acknowledged.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-16 and 31-34 is/are drawn to method (i.e., a process), claims 17-30, and 35-38 is/are drawn to device (i.e., a manufacture). As such, claims 1-38 is/are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Under Step 2A Prong 1, the claims are analyzed to determine whether the claims recite any judicial exceptions including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes).
Representative Claim 1: A method for providing high-precision spatiotemporal identifier services, the method comprising:
repeatedly receiving low-precision client positions from clients;
receiving an area of interest from a search client;
identifying candidate clients using low-precision client positions within the area of interest and surrounding areas according to predetermined criteria;
confirming high-precision spatiotemporal identifiers with the candidate clients;
and confirming, with the search client, one or more target clients among the candidate clients using the high-precision spatiotemporal identifiers.
(Examiner notes: The underlined claim terms above are interpreted as additional elements beyond the abstract idea and are further analyzed under Step 2A - Prong Two)
Under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the steps of: a method for providing high-precision spatiotemporal identifier services, the method comprising: repeatedly receiving low-precision client positions from clients; receiving an area of interest from a search client; identifying candidate clients using low-precision client positions within the area of interest and surrounding areas according to predetermined criteria; confirming high-precision spatiotemporal identifiers with the candidate clients; and confirming, with the search client, one or more target clients among the candidate clients using the high-precision spatiotemporal identifiers (i.e., mathematical relationships), then it also falls within the “Mental Processes” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
Further, the steps of determining low precision client positions and using maps (i.e., one or more concepts performed in the human mind, such as one or more observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions), then it also falls within the “Mathematical concepts” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent Claims 2-16, 18-30, 32-34, and 36-38 further narrow the abstract idea by performing RTK, using location data, client device IDs, range and velocity data, and using thresholds (i.e., one or more concepts performed in the human mind, such as one or more observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions), then it also falls within the “Mental Processes” and is an abstract idea and then it also falls within the “Mathematical concepts” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas and then also falls within the “Mathematical concepts” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
Independent claim(s) 1, 17, 31, and 35 recite/describe nearly identical steps (and therefore also recite limitations that fall within this subject matter grouping of abstract ideas), and this/these claim(s) is/are therefore determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong One: YES).
Under Step 2A Prong 2 the claims are analyzed to determine whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A - Prong Two: In prong two of step 2A, an evaluation is made whether a claim recites any additional element, or combination of additional elements, that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. An “addition element” is an element that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception (i.e., an element/limitation that sets forth an abstract idea is not an additional element). The phrase “integration into a practical application” is defined as requiring an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using “apparatus”, “processor,” and a “client device”, etc. (Claim 1, 17, 31, and 35) is/are equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer.
Similarly, the limitations of applying “apparatus,” “processor,” and a “client device”, etc. (Independent Claim(s) 1, 17, 31, and 35, and dependent claims 2-16, 18-30, 32-34, and 36-38 are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components in a phone. This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Further, the additional limitations beyond the abstract idea identified above, serves merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Specifically, it/they serve(s) to limit the application of the abstract idea to computerized environments (e.g., performing, determining, identifying, etc. steps performed by a location model, machine algorithms, a communication interface, a memory, a processor, a computational device etc.). This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The recited additional element(s) of performing RTK, using location data, client device IDs, range and velocity data, and using thresholds (Claim(s) 1, 17, 31, and 35), additionally and/or alternatively simply append insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, (e.g., mere pre-solution activity, such as data gathering, in conjunction with an abstract idea). This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Dependent claim 2-16, 18-30, 32-34, and 36-38, fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective dependent claims is/are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim (i.e. they are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim).
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong two: NO).
Step 2B: In step 2B, the claims are analyzed to determine whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, is/are sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. This analysis is also termed a search for an "inventive concept." An "inventive concept" is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2”, the identified additional elements in independent claim(s) 1, 17, 31, and 35, and dependent claims 2-16, 18-30, 32-34, and 36-38 are equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer, and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Therefore, the claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The recited additional element(s) of high-precision positions (Claim(s) 1, 17, 31, and 35), additionally and/or alternatively simply append insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, (e.g., mere pre-solution activity, such as data gathering, in conjunction with an abstract idea) i.e. receiving position and velocity data (i.e. presenting data on a map with objects on the map) is similar to “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet/satellites to gather data”, is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here) (See MPEP 2106.05(d) (II)).
This conclusion is based on a factual determination. Applicant’s own disclosure at paragraph [0009] acknowledges that “elative positioning method generally uses a reference station that knows its precise position” (i.e. conventional nature of receiving satellite data over a signal). This additional element therefore do not ensure the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Viewing the additional limitations in combination also shows that they fail to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately, and thus simply append the abstract idea with words equivalent to “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or/and append the abstract idea with insignificant extra solution activity associated with the implementation of the judicial exception, and/or simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
The dependent claims 2-16, 18-30, 32-34, and 36-38 fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective independent claims is/are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim (i.e. they are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim).
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
Therefore, claims 1-38 are not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
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.
Claims 1, 5-9, 12-13, 17, 19-23, and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ornelas et al (US 2021/0037339 A1) in view of Brinig et al (US 2018/0102017 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Ornelas teaches a method for providing high-precision spatiotemporal identifier services, the method comprising [0029, 0031-0032 for getting geographic location of client devices]:
repeatedly receiving low-precision client positions from clients [0031, 0034];
identifying candidate clients using low-precision client positions within the area of interest and surrounding areas according to predetermined criteria [0035-0036 for determining distance within a geo-fence (low precision) and zones];
confirming high-precision spatiotemporal identifiers with the candidate clients [0037 for threshold comparison for triggering conditions and having an alert (high precision to send alert to client device)];
and confirming, with the search client, one or more target clients among the candidate clients using the high-precision spatiotemporal identifiers [0023 for sending alert to client device (high precision) and 0035-0036, for defining zones for clients, 0045 for having minimum and triggering distances].
Ornelas fails to explicitly teach receiving an area of interest from a search client.
Brinig has a transport facilitation can identify a mass egress area within a given region and receive a pick-up request from a rider device (abstract) and teaches receiving an area of interest from a search client [0034-0035].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the client position techniques, as disclosed by Ornelas, further including the area of interest calculations as taught by Brinig for the purpose to enable a direct pairing experience (Brinig, 0035).
Regarding Claim 17, Ornelas teaches an apparatus comprising a processor and memory and a set of instructions enabling the processor to [0029, 0031-0032 for getting geographic location of client devices]:
repeatedly receive low-precision client positions from clients [0031, 0034 for geo-fence and zones];
identify candidate clients using low-precision client positions within the area of interest and surrounding areas according to predetermined criteria [0035-0036 for determining distance within a geo-fence (low precision)];
confirm high-precision spatiotemporal identifiers with the candidate clients [0037 for threshold comparison for triggering conditions and having an alert (high precision to send alert to client device)];
and confirm, with the search client, one or more target clients among the candidate clients using the high-precision spatiotemporal identifiers [0023 for sending alert to client device (high precision) and 0035-0036, for defining zones for clients, 0045 for having minimum and triggering distances].
Ornelas fails to explicitly teach receiving an area of interest from a search client.
Brinig has a transport facilitation can identify a mass egress area within a given region and receive a pick-up request from a rider device (abstract) and teaches receiving an area of interest from a search client [0034-0035].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the client position techniques, as disclosed by Ornelas, further including the area of interest calculations as taught by Brinig for the purpose to enable a direct pairing experience (Brinig, 0035).
Regarding Claim 5 and 19, Ornelas teaches the area of interest is specified using textual means [0052 for using a messaging application].
Regarding Claim 6 and 20, Ornelas fails to explicitly teach the area of interest is specified using graphical means on an electronic map.
Brinig has a transport facilitation can identify a mass egress area within a given region and receive a pick-up request from a rider device (abstract) and teaches the area of interest is specified using graphical means on an electronic map [0016 for having a mapping engine].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the client position techniques, as disclosed by Ornelas, further including the area of interest calculations as taught by Brinig for the purpose to facilitate in moving driver supply to a particular mass egress location (Brinig, 0016).
Regarding Claim 7 and 21, Ornelas teaches confirming the high-precision spatiotemporal identifiers with the candidate clients comprises receiving the high-precision spatiotemporal identifiers from each of the candidate clients [0037 for threshold comparison for triggering conditions and having an alert (high precision to send alert to client device)].
Regarding Claim 8 and 22, Ornelas teaches confirming the high-precision spatiotemporal identifiers with the candidate clients comprises: receiving satellite observation data from each of the candidate clients [0029 for getting location data from client device];
and performing a relative positioning RTK algorithm using the satellite observation data to obtain high-precision position of each of the candidate clients [0026-0027 for getting RTK positioning].
Regarding Claim 9 and 23, Ornelas teaches performing the relative positioning RTK algorithm with the candidate clients comprises individually performing the relative positioning RTK algorithm between an RTK reference station and each of the candidate clients [0026-0027 for getting RTK positioning with base stations know positions and corrections].
Regarding Claim 12 and 26, Ornelas fails to explicitly teach confirming, with the search client, the one or more target clients among the candidate clients comprises: transmitting the high-precision spatiotemporal identifiers of the candidate clients to the search client; receiving, from the search client, one or more target high-precision spatiotemporal identifiers among the high-precision spatiotemporal identifiers of the candidate clients; and identifying the one or more target clients corresponding to the one or more target high-precision spatiotemporal identifiers.
Brinig has a transport facilitation can identify a mass egress area within a given region and receive a pick-up request from a rider device (abstract) and teaches confirming, with the search client, the one or more target clients among the candidate clients comprises [0040-0041 for having a match code]:
transmitting the high-precision spatiotemporal identifiers of the candidate clients to the search client; receiving, from the search client, one or more target high-precision spatiotemporal identifiers among the high-precision spatiotemporal identifiers of the candidate clients [0044-0045 for getting a match code for drivers];
and identifying the one or more target clients corresponding to the one or more target high-precision spatiotemporal identifiers [0045-0046].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the client position techniques, as disclosed by Ornelas, further including the area of interest calculations as taught by Brinig for the purpose to identify the appropriate code log entry (Brinig, 0044).
Regarding Claim 13 and 27, Ornelas teaches providing the search client with a means of communication with the target client using user information of the target client.
Brinig has a transport facilitation can identify a mass egress area within a given region and receive a pick-up request from a rider device (abstract) and teaches providing the search client with a means of communication with the target client using user information of the target client [0045-0046, 050].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the client position techniques, as disclosed by Ornelas, further including the area of interest calculations as taught by Brinig for the purpose to identify the appropriate code log entry (Brinig, 0044).
Claims 2-4, 14-16, and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ornelas et al (US 2021/0037339 A1) in view of Brinig et al (US 2018/0102017 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Khan et al (US 2011/0238755 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Ornela fails to explicitly teach low-precision client positions from clients are at regular intervals.
Khan has a proximity-based Social Networking facilitator system determines and provides a user with relevant information based on his proximity to other users (abstract) and teaches low-precision client positions from clients are at regular intervals [0041-0042 for receiving client location].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the client position techniques, as disclosed by Ornelas, further including the location calculations as taught by Khan for the purpose to present information to the users about the other proximately located users (Khan, 0039).
Regarding Claim 3, Ornelas teaches each of low-precision client positions from clients is reported upon difference between current low-precision client position and last reported low-precision client position exceeding a predetermined distance.
Khan has a proximity-based Social Networking facilitator system determines and provides a user with relevant information based on his proximity to other users (abstract) and teaches each of low-precision client positions from clients is reported upon difference between current low-precision client position and last reported low-precision client position exceeding a predetermined distance [0081-0083 determining where device has moved per interval and 0087 for determining when user has departed].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the client position techniques, as disclosed by Ornelas, further including the location calculations as taught by Khan for the purpose to present information to the users about the other proximately located users (Khan, 0039).
Regarding Claim 4, Ornelas fails to explicitly teach repeatedly receiving low-precision client positions from clients comprises requesting one or more clients to report their low-precision client positions.
Khan has a proximity-based Social Networking facilitator system determines and provides a user with relevant information based on his proximity to other users (abstract) and teaches low-precision client positions from clients are at regular intervals [0081-0083 determining where device has moved per interval].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the client position techniques, as disclosed by Ornelas, further including the location calculations as taught by Khan for the purpose to present information to the users about the other proximately located users (Khan, 0039).
Regarding Claim 14 and 28, Ornelas fails to explicitly teach providing the target client with a means of communication with the search client using user information of the search client.
Khan has a proximity-based Social Networking facilitator system determines and provides a user with relevant information based on his proximity to other users (abstract) and teaches providing the target client with a means of communication with the search client using user information of the search client [0027-0028 for proximity information on a map for meeting and informing users].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the client position techniques, as disclosed by Ornelas, further including the location calculations as taught by Khan for the purpose to add comments to other users (Khan, 0069).
Regarding Claim 15 and 29, Ornelas fails to explicitly teach providing the search client with information posted by the target client.
Khan has a proximity-based Social Networking facilitator system determines and provides a user with relevant information based on his proximity to other users (abstract) and teaches providing the search client with information posted by the target client [0067-0069 for feed intervals].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the client position techniques, as disclosed by Ornelas, further including the location calculations as taught by Khan for the purpose to add comments to other users (Khan, 0069).
Regarding Claim 16 and 30, Ornelas teaches the search client is within a posting area registered by the target client [0035].
Claims 10-11 and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ornelas et al (US 2021/0037339 A1) in view of Brinig et al (US 2018/0102017 A1), as applied to claims 1 and 17 above, and further in view of Edge et al (US 2018/0324740 A1).
Regarding Claim 10 and 24, Ornelas fails to explicitly teach performing the relative positioning RTK algorithm with the candidate clients comprises: individually performing the relative positioning RTK algorithm to obtain individual distance vectors between a representative candidate client and remaining candidate clients; performing the relative positioning RTK algorithm between an RTK reference station and the representative candidate client to obtain representative high-precision position of the representative candidate client; and determining positions of the remaining candidate clients using the individual distance vectors and the representative high-precision position.
Edge has a system for broadcasting positioning assistance data to subscriber devices in a wireless network (abstract) and teaches performing the relative positioning RTK algorithm with the candidate clients comprises [0120 for estimating position of UE using RTK]:
individually performing the relative positioning RTK algorithm to obtain individual distance vectors between a representative candidate client and remaining candidate clients [0120 for positioning using timing, RTK, cell data and satellites];
performing the relative positioning RTK algorithm between an RTK reference station and the representative candidate client to obtain representative high-precision position of the representative candidate client [0122];
and determining positions of the remaining candidate clients using the individual distance vectors and the representative high-precision position [0122 and 0227 for determining location and positioning assistance data].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the client position techniques, as disclosed by Ornelas, further including the location distance calculations as taught by Edge for the purpose to create positioning assistance data (Edge, 0121).
Regarding Claim 11 and 25, Ornelas fails to explicitly teach performing the relative positioning RTK algorithm with the candidate clients comprises: individually performing a single point positioning algorithm for each candidate client to obtain single point positions of the candidate clients; obtaining an average single point position by averaging the single point positions; individually performing the relative positioning RTK algorithm to obtain individual distance vectors between a representative candidate client and remaining candidate clients; determining representative position of the representative candidate client using the average single point position and the individual distance vectors; and determining positions of the remaining candidate clients using the representative position and the individual distance vectors.
Edge has a system for broadcasting positioning assistance data to subscriber devices in a wireless network (abstract) and teaches performing the relative positioning RTK algorithm with the candidate clients comprises: individually performing a single point positioning algorithm for each candidate client to obtain single point positions of the candidate clients [0120 for estimating position of UE using RTK]:
obtaining an average single point position by averaging the single point positions; individually performing the relative positioning RTK algorithm to obtain individual distance vectors between a representative candidate client and remaining candidate clients [0120 for positioning using timing, RTK, cell data and satellites];
determining representative position of the representative candidate client using the average single point position and the individual distance vectors [0122, 0142];
and determining positions of the remaining candidate clients using the representative position and the individual distance vectors [0122 and 0227 for determining location and positioning assistance data].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the client position techniques, as disclosed by Ornelas, further including the location distance calculations as taught by Edge for the purpose to create positioning assistance data (Edge, 0121).
Claims 31 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al (US 5,379,224 A) in view of Brinig et al (US 2018/0102017 A1).
Regarding Claim 31, Brown teaches a method for providing high-precision spatiotemporal identifier services, the method comprising [col 4, lines 5-20 for digitally sampling signal and recording data]:
receiving satellite observation data from a client [col 2, lines 53-65 and col 4, lines 1-10 for calculating position and velocity].
Brown fails to explicitly teach and performing a high-precision positioning algorithm using the satellite observation data generating a high-precision spatiotemporal identifier for the client.
Brinig has a transport facilitation can identify a mass egress area within a given region and receive a pick-up request from a rider device (abstract) and teaches performing a high-precision positioning algorithm using the satellite observation data generating a high-precision spatiotemporal identifier for the client [0044-0046, 0050].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the client position techniques, as disclosed by Ornelas, further including the area of interest calculations as taught by Brinig for the purpose to identify the appropriate code log entry (Brinig, 0044).
Regarding Claim 35, Brown teaches apparatus comprising a processor and memory and a set of instructions enabling the processor to [col 4, lines 5-20 for digitally sampling signal and recording data]:
receive satellite observation data from a client [col 2, lines 53-65 and col 4, lines 1-10 for calculating position and velocity].
Brown fails to explicitly teach and perform a high-precision positioning algorithm using the satellite observation data generating a high-precision spatiotemporal identifier for the client.
Brinig has a transport facilitation can identify a mass egress area within a given region and receive a pick-up request from a rider device (abstract) and teaches and perform a high-precision positioning algorithm using the satellite observation data generating a high-precision spatiotemporal identifier for the client [0044-0046, 0050].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the client position techniques, as disclosed by Ornelas, further including the area of interest calculations as taught by Brinig for the purpose to identify the appropriate code log entry (Brinig, 0044).
Claims 32 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al (US 5,379,224 A) in view of Brinig et al (US 2018/0102017 A1) as applied to claim 31 above, and further in view of Basnayake et al (US 2009/0271112 A1).
Regarding Claim 32 and 36, Brown fails to explicitly teach verifying integrity of the satellite observation data using actual orbit information of GNSS (Global Navigation Satellite System).
Basnayake has method for authenticating a message transmitted in a vehicle-to-vehicle communications system (abstract) and teaches verifying integrity of the satellite observation data using actual orbit information of GNSS (Global Navigation Satellite System) [0018-0019 for comparing positions and 0020].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the client position techniques, as disclosed by Brown, further including the location calculations as taught by Basnayake for the purpose to calculates the precise relative position of the sending vehicle based on the raw data (Basnayake, 0018).
Claims 33-34 and 37-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al (US 5,379,224 A) in view of Brinig et al (US 2018/0102017 A1) as applied to claim 31 above, and further in view of Khan et al (US 2011/0238755 A1).
Regarding Claims 33 and 37, Brown fails to explicitly teach transmitting the high-precision spatiotemporal identifier to a relevant client.
Ornelas has a high precision geofence system (abstract) and teaches transmitting the high-precision spatiotemporal identifier to a relevant client [0037 for threshold comparison for triggering conditions and having an alert (high precision to send alert to client device)].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the client position techniques, as disclosed by Brown, further including the precision location calculations as taught by Ornelas for the purpose to identify and alert client devices (Ornelas, 0037).
Regarding Claim 34 and 38, Brown fails to explicitly teach storing a pair of the high-precision spatiotemporal identifier and its corresponding client ID; retrieving two or more pairs having target high-precision spatiotemporal identifiers from stored pairs to obtain their target corresponding client IDs; and checking whether the target corresponding clients IDs are same.
Ornelas has a high precision geofence system (abstract) and teaches storing a pair of the high-precision spatiotemporal identifier and its corresponding client ID [0034-0036 for storing location data and threshold from client device (client ID is phone/IMEI number)];
retrieving two or more pairs having target high-precision spatiotemporal identifiers from stored pairs to obtain their target corresponding client IDs [0036-0037 for knowing zones, thresholds, and trigger distances for alerts to client devices (ID)];
and checking whether the target corresponding clients IDs are same [0041-0042].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the client position techniques, as disclosed by Brown, further including the precision location calculations as taught by Ornelas for the purpose to identify and alert client devices (Ornelas, 0037).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Large et al (US 2014/0184442 A1) extracting pseudorange information using a cellular device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMARINA MAKHDOOM whose telephone number is (703)756-1044. The examiner can normally be reached Monday – Thursdays from 8:30 to 5:30 pm eastern time.
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, William Kelleher can be reached on 571-272-7753 The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SAMARINA MAKHDOOM/
Examiner, Art Unit 3648