DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to Applicant Arguments and Remarks filed on December 10, 2025.
Claims 1, 3-5 and 19-20 have been amended. Claim 2 has been canceled.
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 Amendment
Applicant's Remarks, filed December 10, 2025, has been fully considered and entered.
Accordingly, Claims 1 and 3-20 are pending in this application. Claims 1, 2-5 and 19-20 have been amended. Claim 2 has been canceled. Claims 1, 19 and 20 are independent claim. In light of applicant amendments, the 101 rejection of claims 1-20 for being directed to an abstract idea, and the 112(b) rejection of claim 4 as being indefinite have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-17, filed December 10, 2025, with respect to the amendments of independent claims 1, 19 and 20 have been fully considered, but they are moot in view of new grounds of rejection necessitated by amendment.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claims 1, 19 and 20, “the user search radius” should read “the search radius”.
Dependent claims 3-18 do not overcome the deficiency of the base claim and, therefore, are objected for the same reasons as the base claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claim 3 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "wherein the search radius is not provided by the user". It is unclear how "the search radius"; which is provided by a user as part of a search query (as claimed in claim 1), is not provided by the user?. Does “the search radius” refers to a user search radius? Examiner request clarification from Applicant.
The Specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The metes and bounds of “the search radius” is unclear and thus the scope of the claim is indefinite. For the purpose of examination, “the search radius” will be interpreted as “a search radius”.
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 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.
Claims 1, 3-10, 12-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Djabarov (US Patent Application Publication No. US 20150067032 A1), in view of Kwant (US Patent Application Publication No. US 20190347851 A1), in view of Miller (US Patent Application Publication No. US 20170223504 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Djabarov teaches a computer-implemented method for a localized recommendation search based on discovery radius optimization, comprising: displaying, by a computing device, a map image of a geographical area; receiving, by the computing device and from a user, a search query, wherein the search query comprises a user location and a search radius; (See Djabarov [0015-0017] “One computing device may make a request to another to receive a list of locations within a particular geographic area… A request may be specific to a rectangular geographic area, which may correspond to a geographic area being displayed or being prepared for a display by a computing device [Thus, displaying, by a computing device, a map image of a geographical area]… This request may be made by… a client device to a server [e.g. remote server] to receive the location-based information for display on the client device… a mobile device may receive a request [e.g. search query] from a user to display local restaurants and prepare to display the local area around the device with an overlay of restaurants within that local area, such as a portion of a user interface of the mobile device… a full two-dimensional ranged search may be performed to determine the locations within the specified geographic area [e.g. search radius]… The location-based information may therefore be organized according to tiles, where a tile embodies a pre-calculated set of location-based information for a defined geographic area, such as a rectangle.” See also Djabarov [0025-0026, 0038] "The search system 100 may use a tile store 160 storing predetermined tiles for use in responding to received requests. The search system 100 may interact with a plurality of client applications, such as client application 190 on client device 180, receiving location-based requests [e.g. search query] and responding with sets of tiles. The communication component 120 may be operative to receive a location-based request 130 from a client application 190, the location-based request 130 comprising a geographic area [e.g. search radius], and to transmit a plurality of tiles 170 to the client application... the client device 180 may be a mobile device being used within the geographic area being searched by a user 210. The client device 180 may be operative to determine its current location 225 [e.g. a user location] via a global positioning system (GPS) 220 using the known techniques for determining location via GPS. The client device 180 may be operative to automatically determine the geographic area used as part of the location-based request 130 based on its current location 225 [Thus, the search query comprises a user location and a search radius]. For example, the geographic area may be centered on the current location 225 or otherwise contain the current location 225 of the client device 180.")
However, Kwant also teaches receiving, by the computing device and from a user, a search query, wherein the search query comprises a user location and a search radius in more details. (See Kwant [0038, 0076] “for a point-of-interest (POI) recommendation service, the candidate point 205 may represent a location [e.g. user location] of a user that is requesting [Thus, a search query] POI recommendations… the system 100 queries the geographic database 101 for polygon points 203 that are within a specified distance threshold 207 [e.g. search radius] of the candidate point. In one embodiment, the distance threshold 207 is specified as a distance radius (e.g., 5 km) from the candidate point 205, which describes a circular search area 209 [Thus, comprises a search radius]… An end user can use the device navigation functions such as guidance and map display, for example, and for determination of route information to at least one identified point of interest, receiving recommendations (e.g., POI recommendations)”
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Djabarov which receives location-based requests comprising a geographic area to obtain a list of locations within a particular geographic area based on the user location, to incorporate the teachings of Kwant of specifying a distance radius from the user location to obtain point-of-interest (POI) recommendations based on a user query.
One would be motivated to do so to improve relevance by filtering results based on proximity.
Djabarov further in view of Kwant, [hereinafter Djabarov-Kwant] additionally disclose querying, by the computing device and based on the search query, a centralized database, wherein the centralized database comprises data indicative of a plurality of tiles covering the geographical area, wherein each tile of the plurality of tiles is associated with a respective list of points of interest associated with locations within the tile, and wherein the querying triggers the discovery radius optimization at the centralized database, the optimization comprising: determining a bounding box based on the user location and the user search radius, (See Djabarov [0023-0028] “FIG. 1 illustrates a block diagram for a search system 100… The search system 100 may use a tile store 160 storing predetermined tiles [e.g. data indicative of a plurality of tiles covering the geographical area] for use in responding to received requests. [Thus, querying triggers the discovery radius optimization at the centralized database]… The location-based request 130 may be a search request [e.g. search query] comprising a geographic area [e.g. search radius], a search term, a zoom level, and one or more additional pieces of data… each tile of the plurality of tiles 170 covering a portion of the geographic area and comprising a set of locations [e.g. associated with a respective list of points of interest associated with locations within the tile]… Tile store 160 [e.g. centralized database] may comprise a database, such as a local database, remote database, or distributed database.” See also Djabarov [0031] “The tile store 160, and search system 100, may store or otherwise have knowledge of locations that are relevant to a particular tile's classification and within the geographic area covered by that particular tile and still not stored within the tile. [Thus, associating, in the centralized database and for each tile of the plurality of tiles, the geolocation data with the tile]” See also Djabarov [0016, 0042-0052] "A request may be specific to a rectangular geographic area, which may correspond to a geographic area being displayed or being prepared for a display by a computing device. For example, a mobile device may receive a request from a user to display local restaurants and prepare to display the local area around the device [Thus, based on the user location and the user search radius]… The size, scope, and boundaries of this area may be determined by the mobile device… As shown in FIG. 3, the map 310 includes the display of a current location 330 [e.g. user location] as a star on the map 310... the various dots, such as 375-1, may represent locations received as part of the plurality of tiles 170. The dotted lines may represent the dividing areas between different tiles [e.g. determined user tile and the one or more neighboring tiles]... FIG. 5 illustrates an embodiment of a group of tiles within the geographic area of tile 370-5 with reference to FIG. 3. Shown in FIG. 5 is the geographic area contained within tile 370-5 [e.g. bounding box]... the tiles 570-d may be collectively contained with the geographic area of tile 370-5" [Thus, determining a bounding box based on the user location and the user search radius]
Examiner notes that based on the Specification paragraphs [59-63], the term “the querying triggers the discovery radius optimization at the centralized database” is interpreted as querying a centralized database.)
Kwant also teaches determining a bounding box based on the user location and the user search radius, determining a user tile of the plurality of tiles based on the user location and one or more neighboring tiles of the plurality of tiles that fall within the determined bounding box, and (See Kwant [0036-0038], Fig. 2 "the system 100 then finds or queries the geographic database 101 for proximate polygon points within a certain distance threshold (e.g., a distance radius) [e.g. user search radius] of a candidate point [e.g. based on the user location] or candidate polygon… The system 100 then retrieves the proximate polygons from the geographic database 101 [e.g. centralized database]… to determine the overlap from the total number of polygons… FIG. 2 is a diagram illustrating an example of finding overlapping polygons as described above, according to one embodiment. In the example of FIG. 2, a geographic area 200 includes a variety of geographic features 201 a-201 f(also collectively referred to as geographic features 201) which are represented as polygons stored the geographic database 101 [Thus, determining geographic features]... the geographic features 201 can represent:... political boundaries such as neighborhood boundaries, city boundaries, city boundaries, state or provincial boundaries, regional boundaries, national boundaries [Thus, defining boundaries]... the candidate point 205 may represent a location of a user that is requesting POI recommendations... the distance threshold 207 is specified as a distance radius (e.g., 5 km) from the candidate point 205, which describes a circular search area 209… points falling within the search area 209 are identified as proximate polygon points. In this example, polygon points 203 a, 203 c, and 203 d are returned as proximate polygon points that are within the distance threshold 207 of the candidate point 205. "
PNG
media_image1.png
688
902
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Thus, determining a geographic feature [e.g. 201a (Thus, defining a boundary)] based on the user location [e.g. 205] and the user search radius [e.g. 207], determining a user tile [e.g. 201c] of the plurality of tiles [e.g. 201c, 201d] based on the user location and one neighboring tile [e.g. 201d] of the plurality of tiles that fall within the determined geographic feature.)
However, Miller teaches determining a bounding box based on the user location and the user search radius in more details. (See Miller [0014-0016, 0025] “Interactive geographic maps, e.g., maps provided by a mapping service or computing device running a mapping application, can provide a visual representation of a geographic region… an interactive geographic map can provide point of interest information (POI) in response to a request from a user… databases of POIs may be available from data providers… In additional to search query terms, a search request may include other parameters including constraints such as query field constraints (e.g., a query can specify constraints on business category, brands sold and product types sold, etc.), bounding box constraint (e.g., a query may specify a latitude and longitude bounding box as a constraint), and/or a user location (e.g., latitude and longitude coordinates may be provided specifying the location of the user) [Thus, based on the user location and the user search radius]. POIs may be ranked (e.g., given a score) in accordance to ranking algorithms described further herein for providing the user with POI information based on the user's search criteria… ranking POI information according to a specified geographical region (e.g., a bounding box, or specified radius [e.g. user search radius] around a location)… In the example of FIG. 1A, the request includes a bounding box parameter which corresponds to a bounding box 104 illustrated in the interface 102... In the example of FIG. 1A, the request includes a bounding box parameter which corresponds to a bounding box 104 illustrated in the interface 102.” See also Miller claim 5 “obtaining the POI data includes accessing a publicly accessible database” Thus, determining a bounding box based on the user location and the user search radius.)
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Djabarov-Kwant which determine geographic feature defining a boundary based on a distance radius from the user location to obtain points of interest, to incorporate the teachings of Miller of obtaining points of interest according to a bounding box and specified radius around a location.
One would be motivated to do so to improve relevance by filtering results based on a specified area.
Djabarov-Kwant further in view of Miller, [hereinafter Djabarov-Kwant-Miller] additionally disclose retrieving, from the centralized database, one or more lists of points of interest associated with the determined user tile and the one or more neighboring tiles; and displaying, by the computing device and based on the discovery radius optimization, a visual representation of the particular list retrieved one or more lists of points of interest. (See Djabarov [0016, 0034] “The mobile device may then include the rectangle—such as may be defined by two latitude and longitude pairs—with a request to a server to receive a list of restaurants [e.g. particular list of points of interest associated with the determined user tile and the one or more neighboring tiles] contained within that area along with the specific location of those restaurants… For example, a search for “pizza place” may be classified to a “restaurant” category and initiate the retrieval of restaurant-type tiles [e.g. particular tile] from the tile store 160 [e.g. from the centralized database, remote server (Thus, and based on the discovery radius optimization)] specific to a geographic area and zoom level. This plurality of tiles 170 may include locations [e.g. geolocation data] that match the “pizza place” search and locations that do not match the “pizza place” search. All of these locations, both matching and not matching, may be transmitted to the client application 190 along with flags indicating which locations are relevant and which are irrelevant.” See also Djabarov Fig. 3, [0042-0052] “FIG. 3 illustrates an embodiment of map 310 displayed [Thus, providing] on a client device 180 for the search system 100… In the illustration of FIG. 3 the various dots, such as 375-1, may represent locations [Thus, a visual representation of the particular list of points of interest] received as part of the plurality of tiles 170. The dotted lines may represent the dividing areas between different tiles, wherein each exclusive rectangle formed from four dotted lines represents the exclusive area of a tile. As illustrated, the locations displayed on map 310 were received as ten tiles 370-a [e.g. determined user tile and the one or more neighboring tiles]”
PNG
media_image2.png
576
603
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Thus, displaying a visual representation of the particular list of points of interest.)
Regarding claim 3, Djabarov-Kwant teaches all limitations and motivations of claim 1, wherein the search radius is not provided by the user. (See Kwant [0093] “although the distance threshold is described as radius from a candidate point or point, and therefore forms a circular threshold area, it is contemplated that the mapping platform 103 can use any shape or distance (regular or irregular) to define a distance threshold. For example, the mapping platform 103 can specify [Thus, not provided by the user] another polygon as a distance threshold [e.g. search radius], so that the boundaries of the polygon define the boundaries of the threshold area for determining proximate polygon points.”)
Regarding claim 4, Djabarov-Kwant teaches all limitations and motivations of claim 1, wherein the search radius is a default search radius coded into the centralized database. (See Kwant [0093] “The polygon can be… selected from one of the stored polygons of the geographic database 101. For example, a distance threshold [e.g. search radius] corresponding to a particular neighborhood can be selected if that neighborhood is represented in the geographic database 101 [e.g. centralized database] as a polygon [Thus, search radius coded into the centralized database]”)
Regarding claim 5, Djabarov-Kwant teaches all limitations and motivations of claim 1, wherein the search query comprises one or more search terms associated with respective search radii. (See Miller [0019, 0046] "in addition to query search terms (e.g., keywords), a mapping service can analyze the request to determine whether viewport information and/or a bounding box information (e.g., an area of interest) are also included as additional parameters in the request, which may be subsequently used to filter or select POI information returned as results from the query [Thus, search query comprises one or more search terms]... query results corresponding to POIs outside of the bounding box 104, as indicated by a region 118, are not selected for display in the interface 102 based on the results of the logistic distance function, which may rank POIs substantially with the same relevance within some distance radius r1 (e.g., within the bounding box 104), then from r1 to another distance radius r2 (e.g., some distance outside of the bounding box 104) [Thus, associated with respective search radii], transition from relevant to less relevant (controlled by a parameter or coefficient), then from distance r2 to infinity, have low relevancy.")
Regarding claim 6, Djabarov-Kwant teaches all limitations and motivations of claim 5, further comprising: receiving, by the computing device, the one or more search terms. (See Djabarov [0016, 0035] “a mobile device may receive a request from a user to display local restaurants [Thus, receiving, by the computing device, the one or more search terms] and prepare to display the local area around the device with an overlay of restaurants within that local area [Thus, associated with a user search radius]… For example, a user could search for “pizza place,” [e.g. one or more search terms] receive a plurality of tiles 170 at a given scope for a given geographic area”)
Regarding claim 7, Djabarov-Kwant teaches all of the elements of claim 6 in method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 6 applies equally as well to those elements of claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, Djabarov-Kwant teaches all limitations and motivations of claim 1, wherein the receiving of the particular list of points of interest comprises receiving a filtered list of points of interest. (See Djabarov [0035] “ the client application 190 performs the filtering to determine which locations are relevant to the search, may allow for reuse of the tiles, such as through caching. For example, a user could search for “pizza place,” receive a plurality of tiles 170 at a given scope for a given geographic area including all “restaurant” results, and be shown only those locations which the client application 190 determines matches the search “pizza place.” [Thus, the receiving of the particular list of points of interest comprises receiving a filtered list of points of interest]”)
Regarding claim 9, Djabarov-Kwant teaches all limitations and motivations of claim 1, wherein the centralized database is remote to the computing device. (See Djabarov Fig. 1, [0025-0028] “The search system 100 may comprise a communication component 120 and tile component 150. The search system 100 may use a tile store 160 storing predetermined tiles for use in responding to received requests. The search system 100 may interact with a plurality of client applications, such as client application 190 on client device 180… Tile store 160 may comprise a database, such as a local database, remote database”
PNG
media_image3.png
457
631
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Thus, the centralized database is remote to the computing device.)
Regarding claim 10, Djabarov-Kwant teaches all limitations and motivations of claim 1, wherein the computing device stores a local copy of at least a portion of the centralized database. (See Djabarov [0036] “The client application 190 may be generally operative to cache received tiles [Thus, the computing device stores a local copy of at least a portion of the centralized database] and to reuse those tiles where relevant”)
Regarding claim 12, Djabarov-Kwant teaches all limitations and motivations of claim 1, wherein each tile of the plurality of tiles is polygonal in shape. (See Kwant Fig. 3C, [0079] “FIG. 3C is a diagram of a quad-tree representation of a spatial index of polygon points, according to one embodiment. In one embodiment, the system 100 (e.g., via the mapping platform 103) stores the polygon points (e.g., representing the centroids of each stored polygon) as the spatial index 313 in the form of a quad-tree representation as shown in FIG. 3C. By way of example, the quad-tree representation 340 uses a hierarchical tile projection (e.g., the Mercator projection) that segments the world into, e.g., a quad-tree (or any other number of subdivisions) of any depth, which each depth representing a level of the hierarchical tile projection.”
PNG
media_image4.png
540
785
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Thus, each tile of the plurality of tiles is polygonal in shape.)
Regarding claim 13, Djabarov-Kwant teaches all limitations and motivations of claim 1, wherein each tile of the plurality of tiles is a square. (See Kwant [0079] “FIG. 3C is a diagram of a quad-tree representation of a spatial index of polygon points, according to one embodiment. In one embodiment, the system 100 (e.g., via the mapping platform 103) stores the polygon points (e.g., representing the centroids of each stored polygon) as the spatial index 313 in the form of a quad-tree representation as shown in FIG. 3C. By way of example, the quad-tree representation 340 uses a hierarchical tile projection (e.g., the Mercator projection) that segments the world into, e.g., a quad-tree (or any other number of subdivisions) of any depth, which each depth representing a level of the hierarchical tile projection.”
PNG
media_image4.png
540
785
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Thus, each tile of the plurality of tiles is a square.)
Regarding claim 14, Djabarov-Kwant teaches all limitations and motivations of claim 1, wherein the plurality of tiles is determined based on a characteristic of the geographical area. (See Djabarov [0046] “the various tiles are of varying size and dimension. For example, tile 370-4 is noticeably smaller than even the visible area of tile 370-10. This may represent, for instance, tile 370-4 being for a higher-density area of relevant locations [e.g. characteristic of the geographical area] than tile 370-10. The geographic area for tile 370-10 may have been constructed as larger than the geographic area for tile 370-4 in response to a determination that the geographic area for tile 370-10 contains a lower density of relevant locations [e.g. characteristic of the geographical area] than the geographic area for tile 370-4. [Thus, the plurality of tiles is determined based on a characteristic of the geographical area]”)
Regarding claim 15, Djabarov-Kwant teaches all limitations and motivations of claim 14, wherein the characteristic of the geographical area comprises a population density of the geographical area. (See Djabarov [0019] “As the number of locations relevant to a request within a tile may vary according to location (a city may be denser than a rural area), category (Hollywood, Calif. has more results for “movie studio” than Houston, Tex.), time (as a city gains or loses population [Thus characteristic of the geographical area comprises a population density of the geographical area]), and such, varying the size of tiles may be valuable.”)
Regarding claim 16, Djabarov-Kwant teaches all limitations and motivations of claim 14, wherein the characteristic of the geographical area comprises a distribution of points of interest available within the geographical area. (See Djabarov [0019] “the bandwidth cost of transmitting a tile scales with the number of locations contained therein, which encourages breaking tiles with a large number of locations [e.g. characteristic of the geographical area comprises a distribution of points of interest available within the geographical area] into smaller tiles so as to limit the number of superfluous locations transmitted with border tiles that straddle the boundary of a geographic search area.”)
Regarding claim 18, Djabarov-Kwant teaches all limitations and motivations of claim 1, wherein the search query comprises one or more search terms. (See Djabarov [0016, 0035] “a mobile device may receive a request from a user to display local restaurants [Thus, receiving, by the computing device, the one or more search terms] and prepare to display the local area around the device with an overlay of restaurants within that local area… For example, a user could search for “pizza place,” [Thus, the search query comprises one or more search terms] receive a plurality of tiles 170 at a given scope for a given geographic area”)
Regarding claim 19, Djabarov-Kwant teaches all of the elements of claim 1 in method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 1 applies equally as well to those elements of claim 19.
Regarding claim 20, Djabarov-Kwant teaches all of the elements of claim 1 in method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 1 applies equally as well to those elements of claim 20.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Djabarov-Kwant, in view of Jakatdar (US Patent Application Publication No. US 20160295379 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Djabarov-Kwant teaches all limitations and motivations of claim 10.
Djabarov-Kwant does not explicitly disclose wherein the local copy is used by the computing device in an absence of an internet connection.
However, Jakatdar teaches wherein the local copy is used by the computing device in an absence of an internet connection. (See Jakatdar [0039-0040] “Central server 110 includes or is connected to one or more data repositories 112. Data repositories 112 store media content 114 that is retrievable by central server 110. Data repositories 112 may take any of a variety of forms, such as file systems, databases, and so forth… Central server 110 may optionally be coupled to any number of online client computing devices 130 via one or more wide area networks 190, such as the Internet.” See also Jakatdar [0032] “Computing devices referred to herein as “local servers” [e.g. computing device]” See also Jakatdar [0095-0096] “a local content server [e.g. computing device] may specifically request and receive individual content items directly from a central server [e.g. stores a local copy of at least a portion of the centralized database]… media content items and metadata from the content packages are stored on one or more storage devices at each local content server.” See also Jakatdar [0136-0137] “In an embodiment, content access application software on the device is configured to manage download processes… a download process may begin with an online connection to a central server over the Internet, be interrupted when Internet connectivity is lost, and conclude when the device connects to a local content server. [Thus, the local copy is used by the computing device in an absence of an internet connection]”)
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Djabarov-Kwant, which caches received data from a database and reuse it where relevant [Djabarov 0036], to incorporate the teachings of Jakatdar of storing a local copy of content from a database and use it when internet connectivity is lost.
One would be motivated to do so to allows users to continue working seamlessly without interruption due to network issues.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Djabarov-Kwant, in view of Bitra (US Patent Publication No. US 9609620 B1).
Regarding claim 17, Djabarov-Kwant teaches all limitations and motivations of claim 14.
Djabarov-Kwant does not explicitly disclose wherein the characteristic of the geographical area comprises a strength on an internet connection available within the geographical area.
However, Bitra teaches wherein the characteristic of the geographical area comprises a strength on an internet connection available within the geographical area. (See Bitra Col. 1, lines 31-51 “Techniques disclosed herein are directed toward ranking APs using crowdsourced information, and using these AP rankings to determine a priority of tiles to download to a mobile device… The processing unit is configured to cause the server to receive… a plurality of measurements [e.g. characteristic] pertaining to a plurality of wireless access points, the plurality of measurements received from one or more mobile devices, and determine a priority value for each of a plurality of tiles, based on the plurality of received measurements [Thus, the plurality of tiles is determined based on a characteristic of the geographical area], wherein each tile represents a geographical area in which one or more wireless access points of the plurality of wireless access points is located” See also Bitra Col. 5, lines 22-67, Col. 6, lines 1-13 “FIG. 2 is a map of an example area 200 in which a positioning system, such as the positioning system 100 of FIG. 1, may operate. In FIG. 2, the area 200 is divided into several tiles 210, each encompassing regions of the area 200 having multiple APs… It will be understood that tiles 210 and coverage regions 230 may vary in size and shape, which may depend on AP density, geographical characteristics, desired functionality, and/or other factors… a particular mobile device 105 at a location 240 within a tile 210 may obtain one or more measurements pertaining to one or more APs 130 within the tile 210, and send those measurements to the almanac server(s) 160… Measurements can include a variety of types of measurements. These can include, for example, values indicative of… signal strength (e.g. received signal strength indication (RSSI)) [Thus, characteristic of the geographical area comprises a strength on an internet connection available within the geographical area]” See also Bitra Col. 11, lines 44-45 “information for each tile of a subset of the plurality of tiles is sent to the mobile device.”)
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Djabarov-Kwant, which sizing of the tiles based on a determination of characteristics of the geographical area, to incorporate the teachings of Bitra of determining tiles encompassing regions of a geographic area based on characteristics
including measurements indicative of an access point signal strength, where number of access points in each tile may be reduced, based on rankings and tile priority.
One would be motivated to do so to optimize resource utilization.
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 OSCAR WEHOVZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3362. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am - 5:00pm 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, APU M MOFIZ can be reached at (571) 272-4080. 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.
/OSCAR WEHOVZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2161
/APU M MOFIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2161