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 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 limitations are “mobile device” as it appears in Claims 1, 5, and 9.
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. Examiner is interpreting the mobile device as a cellular phone (Paragraph [0057], “Examples of mobile devices include various versions of the Apple iPhone, various versions of the Samsung Galaxy phone, and numerous other cellular phones from other manufacturers.”)
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 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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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, 5, and 9,
Regarding Claim 1, Lines 11-12, and Claim 5, Lines 15-16, the limitation “sending… information indicating disconnection” renders the claim indefinite because the destination or target of this information is unclear. For the purpose of compact prosecution, Examiner is interpreting the claim language as stating the information is to be sent to a server, and that this server is one and the same, or at least associated with, the “network database” as recited in Claim 15. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding Claim 1, Lines 11-15, and Claim 5, Lines 15-19, the limitation “sending…the determined information” renders the claim indefinite because the destination or target of this information is unclear. For the purpose of compact prosecution, Examiner is interpreting the claim language as stating the information is to be sent to a server, as explained above. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding Claim 9, Lines 2-3, “receiving … information indicating disconnection” renders the claim indefinite because the destination or target of this information is unclear. For the purpose of compact prosecution, Examiner is interpreting the claim language as stating the information is to be received at a server, as explained above. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding Claim 9, Lines 2-6, “receiving … information regarding one or more wireless network identifiers” renders the claim indefinite because the destination or target of this information is unclear. For the purpose of compact prosecution, Examiner is interpreting the claim language as stating the information is to be received at a server, as explained above. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding Claim 1, Lines 12-13, and Claim 5, Lines furthermore, the claims recite, “a vehicle integration function of a first vehicle during a navigation operation to a first destination performed by the first mobile device” repeats the language of an antecedent limitation, rendering the claim indefinite because it is not clear if the function is a new function during a new navigation operation to a new destination, or if the limitation refers to a vehicle integration function as recited in, respectively, Lines 3-4 of Claim 1 and Lines 7-9 of Claim 5.. For the purpose of compact prosecution, Examiner is interpreting the claim language as only referring to a singular vehicle integration function. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding Claims 2-4, 6-8, and 10-15,
The dependent claims rely on claims which have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), and are thus themselves also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding Claim 5,
Step 1:
Claim 5 describes a “device” and thus falls under the statutory category of an apparatus.
Step 2(a), Prong I:
Independent Claim 5 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (bolded below):
A first mobile device comprising: a processor, a transmitter, a receiver, a memory for storing instructions for causing the processor, transmitter, and receiver to perform the steps of:
responsive to detection of disconnection of the first mobile device from a vehicle integration function of a first vehicle during a navigation operation to a first destination performed by the first mobile device:
determining information regarding one or more wireless network identifiers detected by a wireless radio of the first mobile device at the time of the disconnection of the first mobile device from the vehicle integration function of the first vehicle during the navigation operation to the first destination performed by the mobile device; and
sending: information indicating disconnection of the first mobile from a vehicle integration function of a first vehicle during navigation operation to a first destination performed by the first mobile device, and the determined information regarding one or more wireless network identifiers detected by a wireless radio of the first mobile device at the time of the disconnection at the time of the disconnection of the first mobile device from the vehicle integration function of the first vehicle during the navigation operation to the first destination performed by the mobile device;
receiving information indicating that the navigation function associated with the first destination performed by the first mobile device should be terminated;
and terminating the navigation function associated with the first destination performed by the mobile device.
The examiner submits that the bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims cover performance of the limitation in the human mind. The determinations and analysis made upon data can simply be performed mentally.
Step 2(a), Prong II:
It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, or adding insignificant extra solution activity, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional limitations beyond the above noted abstract idea, underlined above, are, sending and receiving information, terminating a navigation function, and generic computer technology. Regarding the additional limitations, the examiner submits that these limitations constitutes mere data gathering, and the mere application of computer technology. This falls under the principle of insignificant extra-solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g), and “apply it” as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2(b): The claim does not include additional elements (considered both alone and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, when the elements of the abstract idea are removed, what is left over is insignificant extra-solution activity. This claim is thus ineligible.
Regarding Claims 6-8
The claims that depend on Claims 5 have been given the full two-part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. Dependent claims 6-8, when analyzed individually and in combination, are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The additional recited limitations of the dependent claim fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the additional recited limitations merely further narrow the abstract idea. These claims thus merely further limit the abstract idea, and do not introduce material beyond recitation of a mental process.
Regarding Claims 1-4,
Claims 1-4 recite essentially the same limitations as Claims 5-8, except in the form of a method, and are thus rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for similar rationale as presented above.
Regarding Claim 9,
Step 1:
Claim 9 describes a “method” and thus falls under the statutory category of a process
Step 2(a), Prong I:
Independent Claim 5 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (bolded below):
A method for assisting termination of a navigation operation
receiving, from a first mobile device: information indicating disconnection of the first mobile device from a vehicle integration function of a first vehicle during a navigation operation to a first destination performed by the first mobile device
information regarding one or more wireless network identifiers detected by the first mobile device at the time of the disconnection at the time of the disconnection of the first mobile device from the vehicle integration function of the first vehicle; and
responsive to a determination that at least one of the wireless network identifiers is related to the first destination
sending information to the first mobile device indicating that the navigation function associated with the first destination performed by the first mobile device should be terminated
The examiner submits that the bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims cover performance of the limitation in the human mind. The determinations and analysis made upon data can simply be performed mentally.
Step 2(a), Prong II:
It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, or adding insignificant extra solution activity, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional limitations beyond the above noted abstract idea, underlined above, are, sending and receiving information. Regarding the additional limitations, the examiner submits that these limitations constitutes mere data gathering, and the mere application of computer technology. This falls under the principle of insignificant extra-solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g), and “apply it” as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2(b): The claim does not include additional elements (considered both alone and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, when the elements of the abstract idea are removed, what is left over is insignificant extra-solution activity. This claim is thus ineligible.
Regarding Claims 10-15
The claims that depend on Claims 9 have been given the full two-part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. Dependent claims 10-15, when analyzed individually and in combination, are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The additional recited limitations of the dependent claim fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the additional recited limitations merely further narrow the abstract idea. These claims thus merely further limit the abstract idea, and do not introduce material beyond recitation of a mental process.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 5, and 9 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/341,691 (reference application), further in view of Kumar (US 20120052874 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding Claim 1,
The reference application discloses the following limitations,
A method performed by a first mobile device for assisting termination of a navigation operation, comprising: (Lines 1-2 and 30-32)
responsive to detection of disconnection of the first mobile device from a vehicle integration function of a first vehicle during a navigation operation to a first destination performed by the first mobile device: (Lines 7-9)
determining information regarding [the first mobile device position] at the time of the disconnection at the time of the disconnection of the first mobile device from the vehicle integration function of the first vehicle during the navigation operation to the first destination performed by the mobile device; and (Lines 10-12)
sending: information indicating disconnection of the first mobile from a vehicle integration function of a first vehicle during navigation operation to a first destination performed by the first mobile device, and the determined information regarding [the first mobile device position] during the navigation operation to the first destination performed by the mobile device;
receiving information indicating that the navigation function associated with the first destination performed by the first mobile device should be terminated; (Lines 14-20)
and terminating the navigation function associated with the first destination performed by the mobile device (Lines 30-32)
However, the reference patent, as shown, does not disclose the following limitation,
information regarding one or more wireless network identifiers detected by a wireless radio of the first mobile device at the time of the disconnection at the time of the disconnection of the first mobile device from the vehicle integration function of the first vehicle during the navigation operation to the first destination performed by the mobile device;
However, this is taught by Kumar, which teaches that a device position can be determined using (Paragraph [0058], “Circuit 101 or server 132 may be programmed with a predetermined distance indicating how near a wireless access point is to be to the location before being identified as being near a wireless access point. The predetermined distance may about one mile or less, about 5 miles or less, about 30 miles or less, about 45 miles or less, or other distances, for example in the case where the wireless access point is a cellular base station or cell site, or about 120 feet or less, about 300 feet or less, or other distances, for example in the case where the wireless access point is a Wi-Fi access point. … The service or software application may be configured to map the locations to one or more of a list of wireless access point IDS that are close to or near the location.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the network identification of Reference Application with the location determination method of Kumar, as this improves the accuracy and speed over and above a mobile device’s stand-alone positioning methods (Paragraph [0044], “In various implementations, the position assist data provided by the remote computer 132 may improve the speed of satellite acquisition and the probability of a position fix by concentrating the search for a GPS signal and/or may improve the accuracy of location determination.”). Furthermore, the combination constitutes a simple substitution of elements yielding predictable results.
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Regarding Claim 5,
The combination of the reference application and Kumar, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Claim 5 recites essentially the same limitations as Claim 1, merely in the form of an apparatus. Therefore, Claim 5 is also taught. This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Regarding Claim 9,
A method for assisting termination of a navigation operation (Lines 1-2 and 30-32)
receiving, from a first mobile device: information indicating disconnection of the first mobile device from a vehicle integration function of a first vehicle during a navigation operation to a first destination performed by the first mobile device, and information [regarding the first mobile device position] detected by the first mobile device at the time of the disconnection at the time of the disconnection of the first mobile device from the vehicle integration function of the first vehicle; (Lines 14-20, the claim is merely written from the perspective of the server receiving the data from the mobile device, rather than from the perspective of the mobile device sending the information to the server)
and responsive to a determination that [the first mobile device position] is related to the first destination (Lines 21-29)
sending information to the first mobile device indicating that the navigation function associated with the first destination performed by the first mobile device should be terminated (Lines 30-32)
However, the reference application, as shown, does not disclose the following limitation,
information regarding one or more wireless network identifiers
However, this is taught by Kumar, which teaches that a device position can be determined using (Paragraph [0058], “Circuit 101 or server 132 may be programmed with a predetermined distance indicating how near a wireless access point is to be to the location before being identified as being near a wireless access point. The predetermined distance may about one mile or less, about 5 miles or less, about 30 miles or less, about 45 miles or less, or other distances, for example in the case where the wireless access point is a cellular base station or cell site, or about 120 feet or less, about 300 feet or less, or other distances, for example in the case where the wireless access point is a Wi-Fi access point. … The service or software application may be configured to map the locations to one or more of a list of wireless access point IDS that are close to or near the location.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the network identification of Reference Application with the location determination method of Kumar, as this improves the accuracy and speed over and above a mobile device’s stand-alone positioning methods (Paragraph [0044], “In various implementations, the position assist data provided by the remote computer 132 may improve the speed of satellite acquisition and the probability of a position fix by concentrating the search for a GPS signal and/or may improve the accuracy of location determination.”). Furthermore, the combination constitutes a simple substitution of elements yielding predictable results.
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barfield (US 20160036964 A1), further in view of Andersson (US 20110117933 A1), and Kumar (US 20120052874), herein after referred to simply as Altar, Andersson, and Kumar respectively.
Regarding Claim 1,
Barfield discloses the following limitations,
A method performed by a first mobile device for assisting termination of a navigation operation, comprising: (Figure 1, user device. And Paragraph [0071], “In some implementations, determination component 220 may later determine that a user has exited the vehicle (e.g., based on sensor data and/or location information), and may direct user device 210 to discontinue using location identification hardware and/or discontinue executing location identification hardware. As a result, location identification techniques may be used only when needed, thereby reducing power consumption on user device 210.” – the vehicle navigation is ended to reduce power consumption upon exiting a vehicle.)
[detecting] detection of disconnection of the first mobile device from a vehicle integration function of a first vehicle during a navigation operation to a first destination performed by the first mobile device … (Paragraph [0105], “As shown in FIG. 14, Bluetooth sensor data may be sampled (block 1410). Data may then be processed and features may be extracted (block 1420) to determine if a user has entered or left a vehicle (block 1430).” - Bluetooth disconnection is an aspect of determining a user has left the vehicle)
determining information regarding one or more wireless network identifiers detected by a wireless radio of the first mobile device at the time of the disconnection at the time of the disconnection of the first mobile device from the vehicle integration function of the first vehicle during the navigation operation to the first destination performed by the mobile device; and (Paragraph [0071], “In some implementations, determination component 220 may later determine that a user has exited the vehicle (e.g., based on sensor data and/or location information),” the location information is information regarding the first vehicle position. Furthermore, Paragraph [0108], “Proximity to relevant wireless networks may also be used to indicate if a user is arriving at or leaving particular locations, such as home or office locations.” – a location is assessed based on proximate wireless radio signals.)
sending: information indicating disconnection of the first mobile from a vehicle integration function of a first vehicle during navigation operation to a first destination performed by the first mobile device, and the determined information regarding one or more wireless network identifiers detected by a wireless radio of the first mobile device during the navigation operation to the first destination performed by the mobile device; (Paragraph [0030], “Determination component 220 may include one or more computing devices, such as a server device or a collection of server devices.” -– information is sent to and from a mobile device to a determination component, which can be a server. And Paragraph [0105], “As shown in FIG. 14, Bluetooth sensor data may be sampled (block 1410). Data may then be processed and features may be extracted (block 1420) to determine if a user has entered or left a vehicle (block 1430).” -determination data includes disconnection events)
receiving information indicating that the navigation function associated with the first destination performed by the first mobile device should be terminated; and terminating the navigation function associated with the first destination performed by the mobile device
(Paragraph [0071], “In some implementations, determination component 220 may later determine that a user has exited the vehicle (e.g., based on sensor data and/or location information), and may direct user device 210 to discontinue using location identification hardware and/or discontinue executing location identification hardware. As a result, location identification techniques may be used only when needed, thereby reducing power consumption on user device 210.”)
However, Barfield does not disclose the following limitations,
responsive to detection of disconnection of the first mobile device from a vehicle integration function of a first vehicle during a navigation operation to a first destination performed by the first mobile device: determining information regarding one or more wireless network identifiers detected by a wireless radio of the first mobile device at the time of the disconnection
However, Andersson, in the same field of endeavor, teaches that a trigger event of a vehicle disconnection may trigger an update of location information (Paragraph [0009], “According to some embodiments of the present invention, a mobile terminal for locating a position of a vehicle is provided. The mobile terminal includes a triggering event module configured to identify a triggering event associated with a communication link between the mobile terminal and an external device and to determine a geographic location that approximates the position of the vehicle responsive to the triggering event. A navigation module is configured to subsequently display on the mobile terminal information regarding the geographic location that approximates the position of the vehicle.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the vehicle navigation termination of Barfield with the trigger event responsive to disconnection as taught by Andersson, as discrete user events are relevant to future navigation by the user (Paragraph [0026], “The information regarding the vehicle position may be provided to a user (Block 3), for example, to assist the user in locating the vehicle at a later time.”)
Regarding Claim 2,
The combination of Barfield and Andersson, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Barfield further discloses the following limitation,
wherein the first mobile device is a cell phone (Figure 1, user device is a cell phone. Further, Paragraph [0029], “For example, user device 210 may correspond to a mobile communication device (e.g., a smart phone or a personal digital assistant (PDA)),”)
Regarding Claim 4,
The combination of Barfield and Andersson, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Barfield further discloses the following limitation,
wherein information regarding one or more wireless network identifiers is sent as textual data, hashed textual data, or as references (Paragraph [0108], “Based on performing process 1400, determination component may output: information identifying the amount of time spent within a wireless network range, the amount of time a specific wireless network has been out of range, the signal strength of a wireless network currently in range, the number of wireless networks currently available, the unique identifiers of the wireless networks available, the unique identifier of unavailable wireless network that is being used by a user device. Proximity to relevant wireless networks may also be used to indicate if a user is arriving at or leaving particular locations, such as home or office locations.” – networks are known by unique identifiers, at least as references to their identity, and this information is sent to and from the device).
Regarding Claim 5,
Claim 5 recites essentially the same limitations to that of Claim 1, except in the form of an apparatus. The combination of Barfield and Andersson, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Over and above those limitations which are essentially the same, Barfield further discloses the following limitations,
a processor, (Paragraph [0125], “FIG. 20 is a diagram of example components of device 2000. One or more of the devices described above (e.g., with respect to FIGS. 1, 2, 4, 6, and 19) may include one or more devices 2000. Device 2000 may include bus 2010, processor 2020, memory 2030,”)
a transmitter; a receiver (Paragraph [0040], “Devices of environment 200 may interconnect via wired connections, wireless connections, or a combination of wired and wireless connections.” – devices are connected, to transmit and receive data)
a memory for storing instructions for causing the processor, transmitter, and receiver (Paragraph [0125], “FIG. 20 is a diagram of example components of device 2000. One or more of the devices described above (e.g., with respect to FIGS. 1, 2, 4, 6, and 19) may include one or more devices 2000. Device 2000 may include bus 2010, processor 2020, memory 2030,”)
Regarding Claims 6 and 8,
Claims 6 and 8 recite essentially the same limitations to that of Claims 2 and 4. The combination of Barfield and Andersson, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claims 2 and 4. Therefore, Claims 6 and 8 are also taught.
Claims 3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Barfield and Andersson, further in view of Lee (US 20200120450 A1), herein after referred to as Lee.
Regarding Claim 3,
The combination of Barfield and Anderson, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. However, the combination does not teach the following limitation,
wherein the vehicle integration function is one of Apple Carplay or Android Auto functionality of the vehicle
However, Lee, in the same field of endeavor, teaches that a navigation termination detection can modify a system that is integrated with Apple Carplay or Android Auto (Paragraph [0064], “The user terminal 200 and the vehicle 100 may be connected through an interface, such as an Android Auto, Apple CarPlay, and Mirrorlink.” and Paragraph [0088], “In situation (3) in FIG. 3, when the vehicle 100 arrives at a destination, the vehicle is turned off … and the user terminal 200 is disconnected, the disconnection can be recognized as a situation where the user gets out of the vehicle 100.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the navigation termination determination of Barfield, as previously modified by Andersson, with the use of Android Auto or Apple Carplay functionality, as Android Auto and Apple Carplay are known standards that enable convenient navigation for users. Further, the combination constitutes a simple substitution of elements, yielding predictable results.
Regarding Claim 7,
Claim 7 recites essentially the same limitations to that of Claim 3. The combination of Barfield and Andersson, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claims 3. Therefore, Claim 7 is also taught.
Claims 9-10, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barfield, further in view Attar (US 20150170031 A1), herein after referred to simply as Attar.
Regarding Claim 9,
Barfield discloses the following limitations,
A method for assisting termination of a navigation operation (Paragraph [0071], “In some implementations, determination component 220 may later determine that a user has exited the vehicle (e.g., based on sensor data and/or location information), and may direct user device 210 to discontinue using location identification hardware and/or discontinue executing location identification hardware. As a result, location identification techniques may be used only when needed, thereby reducing power consumption on user device 210.” – the vehicle navigation is ended to reduce power consumption upon exiting a vehicle.)
receiving, from a first mobile device: information indicating disconnection of the first mobile device from a vehicle integration function of a first vehicle during a navigation operation to a first destination performed by the first mobile device (Paragraph [0105], “As shown in FIG. 14, Bluetooth sensor data may be sampled (block 1410). Data may then be processed and features may be extracted (block 1420) to determine if a user has entered or left a vehicle (block 1430).” - Bluetooth disconnection is an aspect of determining a user has left the vehicle. Information is received at the device and then received at a server, Figure 1)
information regarding one or more wireless network identifiers detected by the first mobile device at the time of the disconnection at the time of the disconnection of the first mobile device from the vehicle integration function of the first vehicle; and (Paragraph [0071], “In some implementations, determination component 220 may later determine that a user has exited the vehicle (e.g., based on sensor data and/or location information),” the location information is information regarding the first vehicle position. Furthermore, Paragraph [0108], “Proximity to relevant wireless networks may also be used to indicate if a user is arriving at or leaving particular locations, such as home or office locations.” – destinations are assessed based on proximate wireless radio signals.)
responsive to a determination … sending information to the first mobile device indicating that the navigation function associated with the first destination performed by the first mobile device should be terminated (Paragraph [0071], “In some implementations, determination component 220 may later determine that a user has exited the vehicle (e.g., based on sensor data and/or location information), and may direct user device 210 to discontinue using location identification hardware and/or discontinue executing location identification hardware. As a result, location identification techniques may be used only when needed, thereby reducing power consumption on user device 210.”)
However, Barfield does not teach the following limitation,
responsive to a determination that at least one of the wireless network identifiers is related to the first destination …
However, Attar, in the same field of endeavor, teaches to detect an end to the operation of a vehicle based on determining both that the user has arrived at destination and that the user device has been disconnected (Paragraph [0041], “As described above, the possible parking indicators 320 may include: a manual parking confirmation (e.g., an input from a user to store a location as the location of a parked vehicle); a disconnection from a vehicle dock; a disconnection from a vehicle's short-range radio network; a determination based on data obtained from an accelerometer of the portable computer indicating whether the user is walking or in a moving vehicle; the location of the portable computer at a known parking location; an arrival at a user-specific destination (such as a destination entered into a computer-based navigation application)”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Barfield with the destination identification as taught by Attar, as this improves the determination of if a vehicle navigation as ended (Paragraph [0041], “As described above, in some embodiments the portable computer 306 is used to calculate the probability of a parking event of the vehicle 302 using possible parking indicators.”). Further, the combination is a simple substitution of elements yielding results which are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 10,
The combination of Barfield and Attar, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 9. Barfield further discloses the following limitation,
wherein the first mobile device is a cell phone (Figure 1, user device is a cell phone. Further, Paragraph [0029], “For example, user device 210 may correspond to a mobile communication device (e.g., a smart phone or a personal digital assistant (PDA)),”)
Regarding Claim 14,
The combination of Barfield and Attar, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 9. Barfield further discloses the following limitation,
wherein information regarding one or more wireless network identifiers is sent as textual data, hashed textual data, or as references (Paragraph [0108], “Based on performing process 1400, determination component may output: information identifying the amount of time spent within a wireless network range, the amount of time a specific wireless network has been out of range, the signal strength of a wireless network currently in range, the number of wireless networks currently available, the unique identifiers of the wireless networks available, the unique identifier of unavailable wireless network that is being used by a user device. Proximity to relevant wireless networks may also be used to indicate if a user is arriving at or leaving particular locations, such as home or office locations.” – networks are known by unique identifiers, at least as references to their identity, and this information is sent to and from the device).
Regarding Claim 15,
The combination of Barfield and Attar, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 15. Barfield further teaches the following limitations,
wherein the memory stores further instructions for causing the processor, transmitter, and receiver, to perform the steps of: sending, to a network database, information regarding the first destination, (Paragraph [0030], “Determination component 220 may include one or more computing devices, such as a server device or a collection of server devices.” -– information is sent to and from a mobile device to a determination component, which can be a server, which is the network database. And Paragraph [0105], “As shown in FIG. 14, Bluetooth sensor data may be sampled … features may be extracted (block 1420) to determine if a user has entered or left a vehicle” -determination data includes disconnection events)
receiving, from the network database, information regarding one or more wireless network identifiers associated with the first destination (Paragraph [0071], “In some implementations, determination component 220 may later determine that a user has exited the vehicle (e.g., based on sensor data and/or location information),” the location information is information regarding the first vehicle position. Furthermore, Paragraph [0108], “Proximity to relevant wireless networks may also be used to indicate if a user is arriving at or leaving particular locations, such as home or office locations.” – a location is assessed based on proximate wireless radio signals. The determination component performs a determination as a server and information related to that determination is sent to the user smartphone, Figure 1)
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Barfield and Attar, further in view of Lee.
Regarding Claim 11,
The combination of Barfield and Anderson, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. However, the combination does not teach the following limitation,
wherein the vehicle integration function is one of Apple Carplay or Android Auto functionality of the vehicle
However, Lee, in the same field of endeavor, teaches that a navigation termination detection can modify a system that is integrated with Apple Carplay or Android Auto (Paragraph [0064], “The user terminal 200 and the vehicle 100 may be connected through an interface, such as an Android Auto, Apple CarPlay, and Mirrorlink.” and Paragraph [0088], “In situation (3) in FIG. 3, when the vehicle 100 arrives at a destination, the vehicle is turned off … and the user terminal 200 is disconnected, the disconnection can be recognized as a situation where the user gets out of the vehicle 100.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the navigation termination determination of Barfield, as previously modified by Andersson, with the use of Android Auto or Apple Carplay functionality, as Android Auto and Apple Carplay are known standards that enable convenient navigation for users. Further, the combination constitutes a simple substitution of elements, yielding predictable results.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Barfield and Attar, further in view of Kumar (US 20120052874 A1), herein after referred to simply as Kumar.
Regarding Claim 12,
The combination of Barfield and Anderson, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 9. Barfield further discloses the following limitation,
wherein the determination that at least one of the wireless networks is related to the first destination comprises: determining that at least one of the wireless network identifiers matches a wireless network identifier in a predetermined list of network identifiers associated with the first destination
However, Kumar, in the same field of endeavor, teaches that radio network identifiers can comprise text strings (Paragraph [0058], “Wireless access point identifiers may comprise numeric, textual or alphanumeric strings used to identify a wireless access point, preferably uniquely”) where a list of identifiers is associated with a location (Paragraph [0058], “The service or software application may be configured to map the locations to one or more of a list of wireless access point IDS that are close to or near the location.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the network identification of Barfield with the further technical description of Kumar, as this material is likely implicit within Barfield, and the material constitutes a simple substitution of elements yielding predictable results.
Regarding Claim 13,
The combination of Barfield and Attar, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 9. However, the combination does not teach the following limitation,
wherein the determination that at least one of the wireless networks is related to the first destination comprises: determining that at least one of the wireless radio network identifiers comprises a text string comprising a name associated with the first destination.
However, Kumar, in the same field of endeavor, teaches that radio network identifiers can comprise text strings (Paragraph [0058], “Wireless access point identifiers may comprise numeric, textual or alphanumeric strings used to identify a wireless access point, preferably uniquely”) where a list of identifiers is associated with a location (Paragraph [0058], “The service or software application may be configured to map the locations to one or more of a list of wireless access point IDS that are close to or near the location.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the network identification of Barfield with the further technical description of Kumar, as this material is likely implicit within Barfield, and the material constitutes a simple substitution of elements yielding predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAREN LYNELLE FURGASON whose telephone number is (571)272-5619. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 AM - 6 PM.
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.
/K.L.F./Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665