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 .
Applicant amended claims 1, 7, 11 and 17.
Applicant cancelled claims 10 and 20.
Status of claims:
Claims 1-9 and 11-19 are pending in this office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-9 and 11-19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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) 1-9 and 11-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lynch et al. (GB2536663) (hereinafter Lynch) and Papineau et al. (US20190340453) (hereinafter Papineau) in view of Walling et al. (US20210073825) (hereinafter Walling) .
Per claim 1, Lynch discloses a method (Page 13, lines 22-27, system and method) for determining the co-location of electronic devices (pg. Page 7, lines 5-28, i.e. determining the close proximity [co-location] of user mobile devices [electronic devices), the method comprising the following steps in sequence: receiving a communication from a primary electronic device, wherein the communication provides a current location of the primary electronic device, and wherein the primary electronic device is associated with a group (Page 9, lines 8-22 and Page 12, lines 4-14 first mobile device [primary electronic device], within a group of user devices, sends location and identifier data to a server); receiving a communication from the at least one secondary electronic device, wherein the communication from the at least one secondary electronic device provides the current location of the at least one secondary electronic device (Page 9, lines 8-22, Page 11, lines 1-23 and Page 12, lines 1-14, a first mobile device can periodically scan for other devices within a group after sending its location data to a server, wherein the first mobile device requests to identify the current location data of the other devices within the group;); and determining that the electronic devices meet a predefined co-location condition by determining that the current location of the primary electronic device is within a predefined minimum distance from the current location of the at least one secondary electronic device (Page 15, lines 5-17, the location data received from all of the mobile devices within the group is used to determine whether the users are in close proximity [co-location], such as being in the same vehicle to verify access of HOV lanes; of the location data regarding all of the mobile devices), and determining that the communications from the primary electronic device and the at least one secondary electronic device are received within a predefined time window (Page 11, lines 11-12, Page 12, lines 8-14, Page 14, lines 26-27, Page 16, lines 21-29 and Page 17, lines 1-10, a predetermined time is set to request location data of devices within a group to make sure proximity data is not fraudulent )but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the current location of the primary electronic device is determined by a software application on the primary electronic device in accordance with a power-saving mode of an operating system of the primary electronic device and responsive to receiving the communication from the primary electronic device, sending within a predefined amount of time after the communication is received from the primary electronic device, to at least one secondary electronic device being another electronic device that is a member of the group.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Papineau discloses responsive to receiving the communication from the primary electronic device, sending within a predefined amount of time after the communication is
received from the primary electronic device (see fig.3, step 134, par.66: "In an embodiment, at 134, in cases where the number of RF transmitter-equipped devices [i.e.: smartphones, or other RF transmitting
devices] equals the number of individuals collocated in a vehicle, which includes the driver and all riders, the first server sends a push notification to each individual to respond with GPS coordinates of the
location of each RF transmitter-equipped device."), to at least one secondary
electronic device being another electronic device that is a member of the group (see previous comments, par 66.: the number of occupants being equals to the number of devices, so they are all part of the same group).but fails to disclose wherein the current location of the primary electronic device is determined by a software application on the primary electronic device in accordance with a power-saving mode of an operating system of the primary electronic device.
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 incorporated the teachings of Papineau into the invention Lynch, where Lynch provides a method of determining that two or more mobile electronic devices are in close proximity to each other. The method comprises the steps of enabling a mobile electronic device of at least one member of a group to use a short range wireless communication module to detect other mobile electronic devices belonging to members of the group and store a unique identifier for each detected mobile electronic device and Papineau discloses a method and system to verify carpool occupancy compliance for access to High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes, High Occupancy or Toll (HOT) lanes, or other vehicle-occupancy contingent rewards. The present invention uses software and hardware devices with radio-frequency transmitter modules to permit the “check-in” and “check-out” of individuals from a passenger compartment of a vehicle for particular trips for multiple passenger in order to provide a better quality of service by improving accuracy of indicating carpool activity, see Papineau, par 0007 and 0066. But fails to explicitly disclose wherein the current location of the primary electronic device is determined by a software application on the primary electronic device in accordance with a power-saving mode of an operating system of the primary electronic device.
Walling discloses wherein the current location of the primary electronic device is determined by a software application on the primary electronic device in accordance with a power-saving mode of an operating system of the primary electronic device (par 0092, i.e. a magnet lock may include periodically requesting and/or receiving location data of a rider device, examiner interprets in which the ride-share server determines the periodicity for requesting the location of the devices, and hence the level of power-saving).
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 incorporated the teachings of Walling into the invention Lynch and Papineau, where Walling provides methods and systems may determine whether a rideshare is verified based on received rideshare data. A verification code may be assigned to a rideshare trip. The verification code may be provided to a rider of the rideshare trip. The verification code may be received by a vehicle device assigned to the rideshare trip via user input or communication from the rider device in order to provide better verifications systems to verify data associated with rider as it relates to possible requested options, see Walling, par 0002-0004 and 0092.
Per Claim 2, the combination discloses the method according to claim 1 wherein Lynch discloses the primary electronic device and the at least one secondary electronic device are configured to determine their current location (Page 8, lines 13-21 each of the devices within the group are able to determine location at of the associated mobile device).
Per Claim 3, the combination discloses the method according to claim 1 wherein Lynch discloses the primary electronic device and the at least one secondary electronic device are cellular telephones (Page 7, lines 5-10, the mobile devices can be smart phones).
Per claim 4, the combination discloses the method according to claim 1 wherein Papineau discloses the primary electronic device is installed in or assembled with a vehicle, and wherein the at least one secondary electronic device is a cellular telephone , par 0062, a transponder or other vehicle installed equipment which then communicates to a transponder server" and the par.0066: "smartphones") 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 incorporated the teachings of Walling into the invention Lynch and Papineau in order to provide a better quality of service by improving accuracy of indicating carpool activity, which receiving data from a vehicle installed equipment and other cellular phones in a vehicle.
Per Claim 5 , the combination discloses the method according to claim 1 wherein Lynch disclose the at least one secondary electronic device includes multiple electronic devices (Page 7, lines 17-28, the user devices within the group may include multiple electronic devices such as smart phones and tablet computers).
Per Claim 6, Lynch discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the receiving, sending, and determining are performed multiple times in association with a moving vehicle transporting the electronic devices along a route (Page 14, lines 12-29, during the duration of a car ride, location data is communicated a plurality of times in a periodic manner).
Per Claim 7, refer to the same rationale as explained in claim 1.
Per Claim 8, the combination discloses the method according to claim 1 wherein Lynch discloses the electronic devices are associated with any of a vehicle and occupants of the vehicle traveling along a high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane or a high-occupancy toll (HOT) lane (Page 15, lines 5-9, groups of electronic devices within a vehicle are verified as being proximate to each other to access HOV lanes).
Per Claim 9, the combination discloses the method according to claim I wherein Lynch discloses the electronic devices are associated with any of a vehicle and occupants of the vehicle, wherein the occupants are traveling in association with a carpooling service (Page 14, lines 12-29, the electronic devices are determined as sharing the same vehicle [carpooling] traveling along a route).
Per claim 11, refer to the same rationale as explained in claim 1.
Per claim 12, refer to the same rationale as explained in claim 2.
Per claim 13, refer to the same rationale as explained in claim 3.
Per claim 14, refer to the same rationale as explained in claim 4.
Per claim 15, refer to the same rationale as explained in claim 5.
Per claim 16, refer to the same rationale as explained in claim 6.
Per claim 17, refer to the same rationale as explained in claim 7.
Per claim 18, refer to the same rationale as explained in claim 8.
Per claim 19, refer to the same rationale as explained in claim 9.
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 JOSEPH E DEAN, JR whose telephone number is (571)270-7116. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-3:30.
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, Alison Slater can be reached at 571-270-0375. 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.
/JOSEPH E DEAN, JR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647
