DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to Applicant’s submissions filed on 3/13/2026. Claims 1, 3-14 and 16 are pending.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Shroff does not disclose determining which terminal device should receive which type of information depending on the order of visiting the destinations (Applicant’s Remarks; p. 15), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Shroff, in paragraph 72, discloses various embodiments provide sufficient information/data via the generated user interface to enable a shipment/item recipient to determine where his/her shipment/item is located, and to determine when his/her shipment/item has been delivered, without providing superfluous information/data regarding the location of a vehicle that had previously delivered the recipient's shipment/item, once the shipment/item has been delivered. Shroff further discloses, in paragraph 74, once the vehicle enters a defined number of deliveries prior to delivering the shipment/item in question, the graphical user interface available to the shipment/item recipient is updated to provide a precise location, and in paragraph 77, when delivery is imminent, the precise location of the delivery vehicle may be provided to the recipient. See rejection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Shroff does not disclose, while distributing no detailed current position to another terminal device associated with a visit destination that is different from the next visit destination, two different types of information (with and without a detailed current position of a moving body) are distributed to terminal devices associated with the next visit destination and the different visit destination (Applicant’s Remarks; p. 15), it is noted that the features upon which applicant appears to rely (i.e., distributing detailed current position only to the terminal device associated with the next visit destination) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). The amended independent claims preclude the second information from including the detailed current position, however, it does not appear that the detailed current position is explicitly restricted from being sent to any of the other terminal devices of the plurality of terminal devices. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). See rejections below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 3/4/2026 has been reviewed and considered.
Drawings
The amended drawings were received on 3/13/2026.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “212” has been used to designate both display processing unit (para. 37, l. 4) and distribution processing unit (fig. 6). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is directed to an information processing device that includes a processing step of acquiring a position, however, it is unclear if the distribution information recited in line 4, or the distribution of first and second information recited in lines 9-12, are included in the moving body position information acquisition processing step. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph 9, lines 2-3, “stores the information processing program according” should read “stores an information processing program”. These appear to be typographical errors.
In paragraph 10, line 16, “Fig. 7B is shows another embodiment” should read “Fig. 7B shows another embodiment”. This appears to be a typographical error.
In paragraph 10, line 12, the meaning of the phrase “a still further embodiment” is unclear because it does not use proper idiomatic English. The Examiner suggests the phrase “another embodiment” is clearer.
In paragraph 22, line 6, and in subsequent usages, the meaning of the term “a link” is unclear.
In paragraphs 48-49, it remains unclear whether the size of all of the divided areas are reduced, or only the divided area that contains more than one destination. The Examiner suggests “until the number of visit destinations included in the one or more divided areas is one or less” should read “until each divided area includes one or less visit destinations”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 should be limited to a single colon because using multiple colons in a single sentence is grammatically incorrect which makes it confusing to determine the hierarchical relationships between each limitation.
It appears that claim 1, lines 32-32, should match the indentation level of lines 25-31.
It appears that claim 14, lines 25-29 should match the indentation level of lines 15-24.
In claim 14, lines 10-11, “associated a the visit destination” should read “associated with a visit destination”. This appears to be a typographical error.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“A moving body position information processing system that acquires a position” in claim 1, lines 2-3. Paragraph 32 discloses the position of the moving body is acquired by a device such as a GPS antenna, therefore, the moving body position information processing unit is assumed to be a GPS antenna and equivalents thereof.
“A moving body position information acquisition processing step of acquiring a position” in claim 14, lines 4-5. Paragraph 32 discloses the position of the moving body is acquired by a device such as a GPS antenna, therefore, the moving body position information acquisition processing step will be interpreted as a step of obtaining a GPS position.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 14, lines 25-30 and 15-23, respectively, the limitation “distribute second information … while not distributing the detailed current position … wherein the second information does not include the detailed current position” appears to be new matter because there does not appear to be disclosure of restricting the distribution of second information to times when the first information, which includes the detailed current position, are not being distributed. Paragraph 12 discloses the first information may include a detailed current position of the moving body, and paragraph 13 discloses the second information may include information indicating an area where the moving body currently exists, therefore, it appears that the first and second information may be distributed simultaneously.
Claims 3-13 and 16 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 14, lines 25-33 and 15-23, respectively, the limitation “distribut[e/ing] second information … while not distributing the detailed current position … wherein the second information does not include the detailed current position” renders each claim indefinite because it is unclear if distributing second information is limited to times when first information, that includes the detailed current position, is not being distributed, or the second information neither includes nor distributes the detailed current position. As discussed above, there does not appear to be disclosure of restricting the distribution of second information to times when the first information are not being distributed, therefore, for the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that each claim is directed to the second information neither including nor distributing the detailed current position.
Regarding claim 11, lines 4-7, the limitation “divide a travel route … into a plurality of divided sections, the divided sections including one or fewer visit destinations” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether each divided section includes one or fewer visit destinations, or the entire plurality of divided sections includes one or fewer visit destinations. Figure 14 appears to disclose a travel route divided into sections in which each section has no more than one visit destination, therefore, for the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the claim is directed to each divided section including one or fewer visit destinations.
Regarding claim 13, line 7, the term “a link” is indefinite because the specification does not clearly define the term. Although paragraph 22 discloses the moving body travels on a link, and paragraph 44 further discloses two destinations may be on the same link, it is unclear whether a link is an abstract data type or a physical feature, e.g., a road. Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that a link is merely a section of a travel route between destinations.
Claims 3-13 and 16 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
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, 10-14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shroff et al. (US 2017/0337511), hereinafter Shroff.
Regarding claims 1 and 14, as best understood, Shroff discloses an information processing device comprising: a moving body position information acquisition processing system that acquires positions of a moving body (Shroff; para. 89: one or more location-determining devices or one or more location sensors 120 (e.g., Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) sensors) … many of these components may be located in the vehicle 100 but external to the information/data collection device 130) that is configured to travel to a plurality of visit destinations (Shroff; para. 73: the delivery vehicle progresses along an assigned delivery route); and a processor configured to use a communication system (Shroff; para. 97: carrier computing entity 110 may include or be in communication with one or more processing elements 305 (also referred to as processors, processing circuitry, and/or similar terms used herein interchangeably) that communicate with other elements within the carrier computing entity) to communicate with terminal devices (Shroff; para. 96: carrier computing entity 110 may also include one or more communications interfaces 320 for communicating with various computing entities, such as by communicating data, content, information, and/or similar terms used herein interchangeably that can be transmitted, received, operated on, processed, displayed, stored, and/or the like. For instance, the carrier computing entity 110 may communicate with vehicles 100, mobile computing entities 105) associated with the plurality of visit destinations ((Shroff; para. 126: the carrier computing entity 110 may transmit a hyperlink to the shipment/item recipient/user (e.g., via email) that directs the shipment/item recipient/user's user computing entity 117 to a webpage (or other interface) comprising information/data corresponding to the shipment/item tracking session)), the processor being configured to use the communication system to: distribute first information including information to a terminal device, of the terminal devices (Shroff; para. 126: the carrier computing entity 110 may transmit a hyperlink to the shipment/item recipient/user (e.g., via email) that directs the shipment/item recipient/user's user computing entity 117 to a webpage (or other interface) comprising information/data corresponding to the shipment/item tracking session), associated with a visit destination, that is to be visited next by the moving body, the first information including a detailed current position of the moving body (Shroff; para. 74: once the vehicle enters a defined time, distance, and/or number of deliveries prior to delivering the shipment/item in question, the graphical user interface available to the shipment/item recipient is updated to provide a precise location of the vehicle carrying the shipment/item), and distribute second information (Shroff; para. 73: As the delivery vehicle progresses along an assigned delivery route, and gets closer in time and/or distance to delivering the shipment/item in question, the user interface provided to the user may be updated to provide additional information/data indicative of an estimated location of the delivery vehicle. For example, the estimated location may cover a large region of a map (e.g., may be shown as a polygon over some region of the map) in which the vehicle is currently located.) to another terminal device, of the terminal devices, associated with another visit destination, of the visit destinations, that is different from the visit destination to be visited next by the moving body (Shroff; para. 72: the system may continue to share the location of the vehicle with other shipment/item recipients whose shipments/items have not yet been removed from the vehicle and delivered to their respective destination locations), while not distributing the detailed current position of the moving body, wherein the second information does not include the detailed current position of the moving body (Shroff; para. 77: when delivery is imminent, the precise location of the delivery vehicle may be provided to the recipient).
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, Shroff discloses the second information includes information indicating an area in which the moving body currently exists (Shroff; para. 73: As the delivery vehicle progresses along an assigned delivery route, and gets closer in time and/or distance to delivering the shipment/item in question, the user interface provided to the user may be updated to provide additional information/data indicative of an estimated location of the delivery vehicle. For example, the estimated location may cover a large region of a map (e.g., may be shown as a polygon over some region of the map) in which the vehicle is currently located.).
Regarding claim 10, as best understood, Shroff discloses the processor is further configured to divide a travel route of the moving body into a plurality of divided sections, each of the divided sections including one or fewer visit destinations (Shroff; para. 118: the assigned vehicle route may additionally comprise a navigational route to be followed by the vehicle 100 during the delivery route, including an assigned delivery sequence for delivering shipments/items along the assigned delivery route [i.e., the route is divided into sections between delivery locations]), and the processor is further configured to use the communication system to distribute the first information (Shroff; para. 88: The information/data collection device 130 may collect telematics information/data (including location information/data) and transmit/send the information/data to … the carrier computing entity 110) to the terminal device associated with the visit destination to be visited next by the moving body (Shroff; para. 126: the carrier computing entity 110 may transmit a hyperlink to the shipment/item recipient/user (e.g., via email) that directs the shipment/item recipient/user's user computing entity 117 to a webpage (or other interface) comprising information/data corresponding to the shipment/item tracking session) after the moving body enters the divided section including the visit destination to be visited next by the moving body (Shroff; para. 72: the system may continue to share the location of the vehicle with other shipment/item recipients whose shipments/items have not yet been removed from the vehicle and delivered to their respective destination locations).
Regarding claim 11, as best understood, Shroff discloses the processor is further configured to divide a travel route of the moving body into a plurality of divided sections, the divided sections including one or fewer visit destinations (Shroff; para. 118: the assigned vehicle route may additionally comprise a navigational route to be followed by the vehicle 100 during the delivery route, including an assigned delivery sequence for delivering shipments/items along the assigned delivery route [i.e., the route is divided into sections between delivery locations]), and the processor is further configured to use the communication system to distribute the first information (Shroff; para. 88: The information/data collection device 130 may collect telematics information/data (including location information/data) and transmit/send the information/data to … the carrier computing entity 110) to the terminal device associated with the visit destination to be visited next by the moving body (Shroff; para. 126: the carrier computing entity 110 may transmit a hyperlink to the shipment/item recipient/user (e.g., via email) that directs the shipment/item recipient/user's user computing entity 117 to a webpage (or other interface) comprising information/data corresponding to the shipment/item tracking session) after the moving body moves out of the divided section including the visit destination to which the moving body has visited directly before (Shroff; para. 72: the system may continue to share the location of the vehicle with other shipment/item recipients whose shipments/items have not yet been removed from the vehicle and delivered to their respective destination locations).
Regarding claim 12, as best understood, Shroff discloses after the moving body satisfies a predetermined condition, processor is further configured to use the communication system to distribute the first information (Shroff; para. 74: once the vehicle enters a defined time, distance, and/or number of deliveries prior to delivering the shipment/item in question, the graphical user interface available to the shipment/item recipient is updated to provide a precise location of the vehicle carrying the shipment/item) to the terminal device associated with the visit destination to be visited next by the moving body (Shroff; para. 126: the carrier computing entity 110 may transmit a hyperlink to the shipment/item recipient/user (e.g., via email) that directs the shipment/item recipient/user's user computing entity 117 to a webpage (or other interface) comprising information/data corresponding to the shipment/item tracking session).
Regarding claim 13, as best understood, Shroff discloses the predetermined condition includes at least one of the moving body making a right turn or a left turn a predetermined number of times after leaving a visit destination of the visit destinations that has been visited by the moving body directly before, the moving body travelling on a link different from a link including the visit destination of the visit destinations that has been visited directly before, after leaving the visit destination visited directly before, and the moving body being away by a predetermined distance from the visit destination that has been visited directly before by the moving body, after leaving the visit destination visited directly before (Shroff; para. 74: once the vehicle enters a defined time, distance [when the vehicle is a predetermined distance from the next delivery location, it is also a predetermined distance from the previous delivery location], and/or number of deliveries prior to delivering the shipment/item in question, the graphical user interface available to the shipment/item recipient is updated to provide a precise location of the vehicle carrying the shipment/item).
Regarding claim 16, as best understood, Shroff discloses a computer-readable storage medium storing an information processing program causing the computer to execute the information processing method according to claim 14 (Shroff; para. 78: Embodiments of the present invention may be implemented in various ways, including as computer program products that comprise articles of manufacture. A computer program product may include a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing applications, programs, program modules, scripts, source code, program code, object code, byte code, compiled code, interpreted code, machine code, executable instructions, and/or the like (also referred to herein as executable instructions, instructions for execution, program code, and/or similar terms used herein interchangeably).).
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.
Claim(s) 4-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shroff in view of Klotz (US 2014/0199970).
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, Shroff discloses a two-dimensional area including all of the plurality of visit destinations (Shroff; para. 118: the shipment/item may be associated with a particular vehicle 100 when information/data indicative of an assigned vehicle route is stored in a memory device of the carrier computing entity 110, the mobile computing entity 105, and/or the vehicle 100. For example, an assigned vehicle route for a particular vehicle 100 may be stored on the memory of the mobile computing entity).
Shroff does not appear to explicitly disclose the two-dimensional area is divided into a plurality of divided areas, and the second information includes information indicating in which area of the plurality of divided areas the moving body exists.
Klotz, in the same field of endeavor (location-sharing systems), discloses a two-dimensional area is divided into a plurality of divided areas, and information indicating in which area of the plurality of divided areas a moving body exists (Klotz; para. 104: two accurate user locations 1110A and 1120A respectively are depicted upon a first map 1100A. After rounding to 2 digits their locations are atop one another as evident in second map 1100B with third and fourth approximate user locations 1110B and 1120B. Similarly, until either user moves sufficient distance for the rounding to change the result then they will be displayed stationary even if moving and their location will remain fixed until it jumps across the map to the next rounding).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the estimation location sent by the information/data collection device of Shroff to round the vehicle's location to a predetermined number of decimal places thereby indicating its location within a geographical block of a predetermined size, as disclosed by Klotz, with the motivation of modifying the user's location information thereby increasing the privacy of their information (Klotz; para. 22).
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, Shroff, as modified, discloses the processor is further configured to divide the two-dimensional area including all of the plurality of visit destinations into the plurality of divided areas (Klotz; para. 104: two accurate user locations 1110A and 1120A respectively are depicted upon a first map 1100A. After rounding to 2 digits their locations are atop one another as evident in second map 1100B with third and fourth approximate user locations 1110B and 1120B. Similarly, until either user moves sufficient distance for the rounding to change the result then they will be displayed stationary even if moving and their location will remain fixed until it jumps across the map to the next rounding).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, Shroff, as modified, discloses the divided area includes a plurality of buildings (Klotz: fig. 11; para. 95: the user may be presented with a slider, or other selection means, allowing them to select from multiple "approximate" distances/offsets. Such options may include for example "100-200 m", "500 m-1 km", "2-3 km", "10 km" as well as the "Exact" and "Hidden" settings. At 100-200 m a user may therefore indicate their presence within a particular area, e.g. within a pedestrian precinct downtown, a shopping mall, etc. At 2-3 km the user may be indicating a neighborhood within a city or merely being within a small town).
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, it is unclear if Shroff, as modified, discloses the divided area includes one or less of the visit destinations. However, Shroff, as modified, discloses restricting vehicle location information after a delivery is made (Shroff; para. 72: various embodiments provide sufficient information/data via the generated user interface to enable a shipment/item recipient to determine where his/her shipment/item is located, and to determine when his/her shipment/item has been delivered, without providing superfluous information/data regarding the location of a vehicle that had previously delivered the recipient's shipment/item, once the shipment/item has been delivered) and providing approximate vehicle locations until the vehicle is within a predetermined number of stops of a destination (Shroff; para. 157: once the delivery vehicle 100 is within a smaller distance, shorter time, or small number of stops before delivering the shipment/item (e.g., within 1 mile, within 15 minutes, and/or within 3 delivery stops), the recipient/user is granted access to more precise information/data about the vehicle's 100 current location). Shroff, as modified, further discloses selectively reducing the grid size for location approximations (Klotz: fig. 11; para. 95: the user may be presented with a slider, or other selection means, allowing them to select from multiple "approximate" distances/offsets. Such options may include for example "100-200 m", "500 m-1 km", "2-3 km", "10 km" as well as the "Exact" and "Hidden" settings. At 100-200 m a user may therefore indicate their presence within a particular area, e.g. within a pedestrian precinct downtown, a shopping mall, etc. At 2-3 km the user may be indicating a neighborhood within a city or merely being within a small town).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to set the equivalent distance of the vehicle location rounding of Shroff, as modified, to be less than the distance between two stops, with the motivation of modifying the user's location information thereby increasing the privacy of their information (Klotz; para. 22).
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, Shroff, as modified, discloses the processor is further configured to use the communication system to distribute the first information to the terminal device associated with the visit destination to be visited next by the moving body after the moving body enters the divided area including the visit destination to be visited next by the moving body (Shroff; para. 74: once the vehicle enters a defined time, distance [e.g., the equivalent distance corresponding to the location rounding], and/or number of deliveries prior to delivering the shipment/item in question, the graphical user interface available to the shipment/item recipient is updated to provide a precise location of the vehicle carrying the shipment/item).
Regarding claim 9, as best understood, Shroff, as modified, discloses the processor is further configured to use the communication system to distribute the first information to the terminal device associated with the visit destination to be visited next by the moving body after the moving body moves out of the divided area including the visit destination to which the moving body has visited directly before (Shroff; para. 72: Once the shipment/item is delivered to its final destination location, the location of the vehicle is no longer an acceptable proxy for the location of the shipment/item. Accordingly, various embodiments disassociate the shipment/item from the vehicle, and/or otherwise terminate sharing of the location of the vehicle with the recipient. However, the system may continue to share the location of the vehicle with other shipment/item recipients whose shipments/items have not yet been removed from the vehicle and delivered to their respective destination locations.).
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 THOMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3660. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9:00AM-3:00PM ET.
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, Erin Bishop can be reached at (571)270-3713. 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 THOMPSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights