CTFR 18/822,522 CTFR 80894 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. DETAILED ACTION Claims 1-6 have been examined. Terminal Disclaimer 14-23 AIA The terminal disclaimer filed on March 09, 2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US 12,118,867 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded. Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed March 09, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Followings are Applicant’s remark and Examiner’s response: Applicant’s remark: Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-31-01 Claims 1-6 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. Without conceding the merits of these rejections, and in order to expedite prosecution, Applicant has amended the claims to make it more clear the claims are supported by the specification. Therefore, Applicant requests that these rejections be withdrawn. Examiner respectfully disagrees: Applicant contends that claims 1-6 have been amended to make it more clear that the claims are supported by the Specification and requests withdrawal of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). The arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) is maintained because the amendments do not cure the written description deficiency identified in the prior Office Action. The issue raised in the rejection is not merely whether the Specification discloses a location information obtaining device, GPS functionality, transmission of notification information, transmission of location information, warm standby operation, or cold standby operation. Rather, the issue is whether the application as originally filed reasonably conveys possession of the particular state-dependent operational relationship now recited in the claims. As amended, claim 1 recites, inter alia, a control unit configured to activate a location information obtaining unit when the location information obtaining unit is in a non-activated state, wherein the mobile device transmits notification information while the location information obtaining unit is in the non-activated state and then transmits location information after the location information obtaining unit is activated. The Specification describes a location information obtaining unit and discusses cold standby and warm standby conditions. The Specification also describes transmitting notification information and subsequently obtaining and transmitting location information. However, the Specification does not reasonably convey possession of the specific claimed state-based control logic requiring: (1) transmission of notification information while the location information obtaining unit remains in a non-activated state, (2) subsequent activation of the location information obtaining unit, and (3) subsequent transmission of location information after activation. The originally filed disclosure does not describe the claimed transmission sequence as being expressly dependent upon the activation state of the location information obtaining unit. Nor does the Specification describe a control unit that first transmits notification information while the location information obtaining unit remains in a non-activated state and only thereafter activates the location information obtaining unit and transmits location information. The amendments replace the previously-recited "GPS receiver" with a broader "location information obtaining unit" and replace "button" terminology with an "input interface" and "operation received via the input interface." However, these amendments do not identify support in the originally filed disclosure for the newly emphasized state-based functional relationship recited in the claims. Applicant has not directed the Examiner to any portion of the originally filed Specification that expressly or inherently discloses: (a) a location information obtaining unit being in a non-activated state at the time notification information is transmitted; (b) activation of the location information obtaining unit after transmission of the notification information; and (c) transmission of location information after activation of the location information obtaining unit as part of the claimed sequence. Accordingly, the amendments do not overcome the written description rejection because the application as filed still fails to reasonably convey possession of the claimed state-dependent activation and transmission sequence. Therefore, the rejection of claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) is maintained. Additionally, to the extent the claims recite terms such as "activated state," "non-activated state," "activate," and "location information obtaining unit" without objective boundaries establishing when a particular state begins, ends, or transitions, the claims are also subject to the indefiniteness concerns set forth in the Office Action under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The Specification does not provide sufficient objective criteria for determining the scope of these limitations with reasonable certainty. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-01 AIA 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. 07-31-01 Claims 1-6 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. As identified in the prior Non-Final rejection, the specification does not adequately demonstrate possession of the claimed state-driven control architecture in which: a “location information obtaining unit” is defined as being in an “activated state” and “non-activated state”, and transmission behavior is explicitly conditioned on: the unit being in a non-activated state at time of user operation, transmitting notification information during that state, and subsequently transmitting location information only after activation. The prior Non-Final rejection specifically highlights that the specification does not fully describe: activation of the GPS/location unit in response to state conditions, transmission of notification information “during non-activated state,” and subsequent transmission of location information “after activation,” as claimed. Claim 1 recites a control architecture in which: the location information obtaining unit is “activated when in a non-activated state,” and notification information is transmitted while the unit is in a non-activated state, followed by transmission of location information after activation. Although the specification discloses a location information obtaining unit (GPS communication module) and describes cold standby and warm standby operation (Spec., ¶¶0010–0012, 0057–0058, 0063–0068), the disclosure fails to reasonably convey possession of: a state-labeled activation model (“activated state / non-activated state”) as claimed, and a state-triggered control sequence in which notification transmission is explicitly conditioned on the unit being in a non-activated state at time of operation input, followed by activation and subsequent location transmission. Instead, the specification describes an event-driven system in which: notification information is transmitted when the system fails to obtain location information, and location information is transmitted when later obtained after activation of the location information obtaining unit. The specification does not expressly or inherently describe the claimed causal control logic linking transmission behavior to a defined “non-activated state” at the time of operation input. Accordingly, the written description requirement is not satisfied for claim 1. Claim 2 recites that: activated state = warm standby non-activated state = cold standby While the specification discloses cold standby and warm standby concepts (Spec., ¶¶0010–0012, 0057–0058, 0063–0068), these modes are disclosed in the context of power management and GPS availability, not as explicitly defined “activated” and “non-activated” claim states forming part of a state-driven transmission control framework. Thus, the specification does not reasonably convey possession of the claimed state definitions as functional claim limitations tied to the control logic of claims 1, 3, 5, and 6. Claim 3 further recites a conditional sequence tied to: detection of non-activated state at time of operation input, transmission of notification information, transition from cold standby to warm standby, and subsequent transmission of obtained location information. While the specification describes a transition from cold standby to warm standby and subsequent acquisition of location information (Spec., ¶¶0063–0068), it does not describe: a control condition in which the system explicitly evaluates “non-activated state at the time an operation is received,” nor a claim-defined sequence in which notification transmission is expressly triggered by that state condition. Instead, the disclosure describes failure to obtain location information as the trigger for initial notification transmission, which differs from the claimed state-dependent control logic. Accordingly, claim 3 is not supported under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). Claim 5 recites a method including: transmitting notification and location information based on activated state when an operation is received, and transmitting notification during non-activated state and then transmitting location information after activation, based on state at time of operation. As identified in the quality review, the specification does not describe: dual-mode control logic (activated vs non-activated at operation time), nor explicit conditional transmission tied to a defined state at the moment of user input. The specification instead teaches: notification transmission when location acquisition fails, and subsequent transmission after location acquisition becomes possible. This constitutes an event-based disclosure rather than the claimed state-conditioned dual-path transmission model. Therefore, claim 5 lacks adequate written description support. Claim 6 recites a non-transitory computer readable storage medium implementing substantially the same state-dependent method as claim 5. For the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 5, the specification fails to reasonably convey possession of: a program implementing state-dependent dual-mode transmission logic based on activated/non-activated state at time of operation input, and the claimed sequencing dependent on that state classification. Thus, claim 6 is not supported under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). Conclusion For at least the reasons above, and as supported by: the prior Non-Final rejection, and the specification as filed does not reasonably convey possession of the claimed state-based activation and transmission control framework as recited in claims 1–6. Accordingly, claims 1–6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. As per claims 2- 4, they are also rejected based on the dependency of claim 1. Conclusion 07-39 AIA THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 HOI C LAU whose telephone number is (571)272-8547. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5:00Pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Davetta Goins can be reached on (571)272-2957. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /HOI C LAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689 Application/Control Number: 18/822,522 Page 2 Art Unit: 2689 Application/Control Number: 18/822,522 Page 3 Art Unit: 2689 Application/Control Number: 18/822,522 Page 4 Art Unit: 2689 Application/Control Number: 18/822,522 Page 5 Art Unit: 2689 Application/Control Number: 18/822,522 Page 6 Art Unit: 2689 Application/Control Number: 18/822,522 Page 7 Art Unit: 2689 Application/Control Number: 18/822,522 Page 8 Art Unit: 2689 Application/Control Number: 18/822,522 Page 9 Art Unit: 2689 Application/Control Number: 18/822,522 Page 10 Art Unit: 2689 Application/Control Number: 18/822,522 Page 11 Art Unit: 2689
Prosecution Insights