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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: communication manager configured to receive, claim 11, see paragraph 0014, Fig 1, it’s interpreted that communication manager receive data via receiver.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-13 and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Lynch et al. GB2536663 (hereinafter Lynch).
Regarding 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: 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), responsive to receiving the communication from the primary electronic device, sending to at least one secondary electronic device an
instruction instructing the at least one secondary electronic device to provide a current location of the at least one secondary electronic device, wherein the at least one secondary electronic device is associated with the group (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 [responsive to receiving from primary device), wherein the first
mobile device requests [instruction] to identify the location data of the other devices; Page 9, lines 8-22, Page 11, lines 1-23 and Page 12, lines 1-14), and wherein the instruction is sent to the at least one secondary electronic device within a predefined amount of time after the communication is received from the primary electronic device (Page 12, lines 1-14, Page 16, lines 21-29 and Page 17, lines 1-10, a first mobile device can periodically scan for other devices within a group after sending its location data to a server, wherein the periodic scanning can be configured with a predetermined amount of time to prevent fraudulent use of the application); 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 ).
Per Claim 2, Lynch discloses the method according to claim 1 wherein 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, Lynch discloses the method according to claim 1 wherein 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 5,Lynch discloses the method according to claim 1 wherein 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, Lynch discloses the method according to claim 1 wherein the primary electronic device is configured to determine its current location in accordance with a power-saving mode of an operating system with which the electronic device is configured (Page 12, lines15-18, the mobile devices are configured to determine and send location data by a pairing process to conserve heavy use of battery supply).
Per Claim 8, Lynch discloses the method according to claim 1 wherein 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, Lynch discloses the method according to claim I wherein 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 10,Lynch discloses the method according to claim 1 wherein the receiving, sending, and determining are implemented in any of a) computer hardware, and b) computer software embodied in a non-transitory, computer-readable medium (Page 5 lines 4-11, computer readable medium storing instruction)
Per claim 11, refer to the same rationale as explained as in claim 1.
Per claim 12, refer to the same rationale as explained as in claim 2.
Per claim 13, refer to the same rationale as explained as in claim 3.
Per claim 15, refer to the same rationale as explained as in claim 5.
Per claim 16, refer to the same rationale as explained as in claim 6.
Per claim 17, refer to the same rationale as explained as in claim 7.
Per claim 18, refer to the same rationale as explained as in claim 8.
Per claim 19, refer to the same rationale as explained as in claim 9.
Per claim 20, refer to the same rationale as explained as in claim 10.
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.
Claim(s) 4 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lynch in view of Davis et al. (US20110137773) (hereinafter Davis).
Lynch discloses the method according to claim 1 wherein the primary electronic device is with a vehicle (a first mobile device within a vehicle; Page 14, lines 12-29), and wherein the at least one secondary electronic device is a cellular telephone (the plurality of mobile devices can be configured as smart phones; Page 7, lines 5-10) but fails to explicitly disclose the primary electronic device is installed in or assembled with a vehicle and the secondary device is a cellular telephone.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Davis discloses the primary electronic device is installed in or assembled with a vehicle and the secondary device is a cellular telephone (paragraph 0027 and 0028, a first device is configured as a smart vehicle and a second device is a wireless phone of the user).
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 Davis 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 Davis provides devices, systems, and methods are disclosed for identifying a driver versus a passenger within a smart vehicle. This involves a determination of the relative positions of the wireless communication devices within the smart vehicle using near-field communication (NFC) or GPS, AGPS, etc. in order to modify the passenger verification system of Lynch by configuring communication between a smart vehicle and a mobile device, as taught by Davis, in order to enhance user experience by
integrating systems to enable easy to use billing systems that do not require user intervention and distraction, see Davis, paragraphs 0004, 00027 and 0028.
Per claim 14, refer to the same rationale as explained in claim 4.
Conclusion
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