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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Status
1. This is in response to application filed on 5/20/2024 in which claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nies (US 2022/0182792), (hereinafter, Nies) in view of Moridi et al., (US 2021/0168560), (hereinafter, Moridi).
Regarding claim 1, Nies discloses a method comprising:
initializing a first home address of a user of a mobile device (= location data is obtained, see [0032 and 0040]);
periodically identifying a monthly address of the user of the mobile device based on location data generated by the mobile device during a respective month (= time period for defining groups of location data may be defined, see [0036 and 0060]; and if location data indicates a person begins spending a significant amount of time at a previously unvisited residence, or locations within a predefined distance of a previously…person has moved her residence, see [0042, 0048 and 0064]).
Nies explicitly fails to disclose the claimed limitations of:
“updating a physical address of the user from the first home address to a second home address in response to the monthly address being identified as the second home address for two months over a period of three months”.
However, Moridi, which is an analogous art equivalently discloses the claimed limitations of:
“updating a physical address of the user from the first home address to a second home address in response to the monthly address being identified as the second home address for two months over a period of three months”(= dwelling time period for location for validating user’s home location 308 over multiple instance of weeks, see [0056]; and updating the user’s home location 308 as the second home, see [0058]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Moridi with Nies for the benefit of achieving a communication system that uses user’s location history to monitor changes in user’s home location and share updates related to user’s home location with service providers.
Regarding claim 2, as mentioned in claim 1, Nies explicitly fails to disclose the method wherein the monthly address is identified as the second home address during a first and third month of the period of three months.
However, Moridi, which is an analogous art equivalently discloses the method wherein the monthly address is identified as the second home address during a first and third month of the period of three months.
address for two months over a period of three months”(= updating the user’s home location 308 as the second home, see [0058 and 0056]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Moridi with Nies for the benefit of achieving a communication system that uses user’s location history to monitor changes in user’s home location and share updates related to user’s home location with service providers.
Regarding claim 3, as mentioned in claim 1, Nies explicitly fails to disclose the method wherein the monthly address is identified as the second home address during a second and third month of the period of three months.
However, Moridi, which is an analogous art equivalently discloses wherein the monthly address is identified as the second home address during a second and third month of the period of three months(see, [0058 and 0056]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Moridi with Nies for the benefit of achieving a communication system that uses user’s location history to monitor changes in user’s home location and share updates related to user’s home location with service providers.
Regarding claim 4, as mentioned in claim 1, Nies further discloses the method wherein said identifying the monthly address further comprises: receiving a plurality of location data from the mobile device throughout a month period; organizing the plurality of location data into a plurality of clusters, the clusters corresponding to geographic regions visited by the mobile device during the month period; and calculating a score for each cluster, the score representing a likelihood that the user of the mobile device resides at a given address within the cluster during the month period, wherein the monthly address corresponds to the cluster having the highest score (see, [0048, 0036] and [0050]).
Regarding claim 5, as mentioned in claim 4, Nies further discloses the method wherein said calculating the score further comprises: evaluating each cluster based on any combination of: a set of timestamps the mobile device was detected within each cluster; map metadata at the location the of each cluster; and frequency of instances the mobile device was detected within each cluster (see, [0048] and [0050]).
Regarding claim 6, as mentioned in claim 5, Nies further discloses the method wherein the physical address further corresponds to a cluster having at least a threshold score (see, [0048] and [0050]).
Regarding claim 7, as mentioned in claim 6, Nies further discloses the method wherein wherein said calculating the score occurs each time new location data of the plurality of location data is received and the monthly address corresponds to a given cluster before the month period is over (see, [0048, 0036] and [0050]).
Allowable Subject Matter
4. a. Claims 8 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.
b. Claims 9-20 are allowable.
CONCLUSION
5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KWASI KARIKARI whose telephone number is (571)272-8566. The examiner can normally be reached M-Sat: 6am-10pm.
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, Charles Appiah can be reached on 571-272-7904. 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.
/Kwasi Karikari/
Primary Examiner: Art Unit 2641.
Prosecution Insights