DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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 22-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 22 includes the following steps:
collecting location data from a set of mobile devices over a time period on multiple occasions, each occasion including a timestamp;
detecting an occurrence that a first mobile device and a second mobile device of the set of mobile devices are contemporaneously co-located with one another based on the location data;
logging the occurrence associated with the first mobile device and the second mobile device based on said detecting;
generating a link … between the first mobile device and the second mobile device based on a number or frequency of logged occurrences of contemporaneously co-location therebetween
classifying the link in the database into tiers based on a number or frequency of the logged occurrences, wherein progressively larger or more frequent amounts correspond to progressively higher tiers
Claims 31 and 37 recite similar steps. These steps amount to observation, evaluation, and judgement, which is an abstract idea under the “mental processes” category of abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Collecting location data and detecting that two mobile devices have been in the same location at the same time amounts to obtaining and evaluating observations. Using these observations to generate a link between the devices is a judgement that the mobile devices or their owners are related in some manner. And classifying that link into tiers based on the number of times the devices have been co-located is no more than inferring, or judging, the type of the relationship based on evaluating the observation data.
Observing and logging occurrences of device co-location, linking the devices, and classifying the relationship between the devices are all steps that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper." MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011). For example, a person may draw a conclusion about the nature of a relationship between two people based on a written log that tracks the times they have been observed to be together. That this is the intent of the invention recited in claim 22 is confirmed by the specification, and by dependent claims such as claim 29. At their core, the claims recite little more than this, only using device location data to determine the times that the people were together.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. There are few limitations in the claims that fall outside of the abstract idea. In case it is argued that collecting location data of mobile devices could not be performed in the mind1, this is not sufficient to amount to a practical application of the abstract idea. This only recites the use of common technology to implement the abstract idea. This only links the abstract idea to a particular environment, and as such does not amount to a practical application of the judicial exception. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I). Similarly, the use of a generic “database” to store information also only uses general purpose computer technology to apply the abstract idea, and is also insufficient to amount to a practical application. See id.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Official notice is taken that the limitations in the claims that are identified above to fall outside of the abstract idea were nothing more than well understood, routine, and conventional in this field. As such, these limitations do not provide an inventive concept, and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05.
The dependent claims all recite further abstract ideas, or only routine computer operations that do not amount to a practical application of, or significantly more than, the abstract idea. For example, claim 23 recites graphing a relationship; claim 25 relates to determining relationship types, or tiers; claim 26 relates to judging whether the devices are “together”; claim 27 relates to judging whether the devices were together at a same time; claim 29 is directed to determining a relationship type based on timing of co-location; claim 30 relates to determining a confidence in the relationship type. These claims recite a further abstract idea of a judgement that is performed based on collected data. Claim 24 describes that a user may query a database for particular information, which is nothing more than well known and routine computer functionality. Claim 28 recites discarding co-location data when the devices are among a larger crowd, which is a further abstract idea of judging the validity of data.
All other claims of this application recite ineligible subject matter for reasons that are similar to those given above. Claim 31 recites additional limitations that fall outside of the abstract idea because the steps are performed by a system comprising a processor and a memory. This is not a practical application of the abstract idea because it only link the judicial exception to a particular computing environment. And the POSITA would clearly recognize that these additional limitations are nothing more than well understood, routine, and conventional in this field. As such, these limitations do not provide an inventive concept, and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05. Claim 37 only recites further mental processes of filtering data and associating the devices with particular frequently-visited locations.
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 22-42 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-26 of U.S. Patent No. 11392987, claims 1-21 of US Patent No. 11789372, and claims 1-21 of US Patent No. 12,141,838. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of this application recite only obvious variants of the claims of the patents. For example, instant claim 22 recites a broader and patentably indistinct invention than is found in claim 3 of each patent. All other claims of this application recite only obvious variants of the claims of the patents.
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.
Claims 22-27 and 31-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andreasson, US 20100112989 in view of Alen, US 20140057550.
Claim 22: Andreasson discloses a method of building locational device connections comprising:
collecting location data from a set of mobile devices over a time period on multiple occasions, each occasion including a timestamp (Device locations and their corresponding times are collected over a period of time. ¶¶ 69-72.);
detecting an occurrence that a first mobile device and a second mobile device of the set of mobile devices are contemporaneously co-located with one another based on the location data; logging the occurrence associated with the first mobile device and the second mobile device based on said detecting (Coinciding locations of two devices are detected and are logged. ¶¶72-74);
generating a link in a database between the first mobile device and the second mobile device based on a number or frequency of logged occurrences of contemporaneously co-location therebetween (If a number of coinciding co-locations are detected, devices are determined to be related. ¶74. This implicitly includes linking, or supplying an indication of a relationship between, the devices in a database.).
Andreasson fails to disclose classifying the link in the database into tiers based on a number or frequency of the logged occurrences, wherein progressively larger or more frequent amounts correspond to progressively higher tiers.
Alen discloses classifying the link in the database into tiers based on a number or frequency of the logged occurrences, wherein progressively larger or more frequent amounts correspond to progressively higher tiers (¶¶ 9, 66, and 77-78).
It would have been obvious to the POSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Andreasson with teachings found in Alen, the rationale being to provide greater information describing the type of relationship between the devices. Modifying Andreasson to provide this information would enable increased functionality to its system, such as enabling the discovery of nearby friends, co-workers, or people with common interests. See Alen ¶¶ 5-9.
Claim 23: Andreasson-Alen discloses generating metadata based on the occurrence; and classifying the link in the database based on the metadata, wherein the metadata is used to graph a relationship between the first mobile device and the second mobile device (Andreasson ¶¶ 74-75; Alen ¶¶ 77-78).
Claim 24: Andreasson-Alen discloses that the graph allows a user to query connections between the first mobile device and the second mobile device (Alen ¶¶ 80-84).
Claim 25: Andreasson-Alen discloses that increasing number of occurrences correspond to higher tiers in the friendship ranking (see Alen ¶ 9). Andreasson-Alen does not disclose the specific numbers of occurrences that are recited in this claim, i.e. 5, 10, and 15 occurrences being classified as first, second, and third tiers, respectively. However, this difference between the claim and the prior art does not amount to a patentable distinction. See e.g. MPEP 2144.04(IV). Segregating the various ranks of relationship, as in Alen ¶¶ 8-9, based on there having been detected 5, 10, and 15 occurrences of co-location, would have amounted to an obvious matter of design choice.
Claim 26: Andreasson-Alen discloses that co-location is based on the first mobile device and the second mobile device being within a threshold distance of one another (Andreasson ¶¶ 73 and 75).
Claim 27: Andreasson-Alen discloses that contemporaneously is based on: rounding to the nearest hour; or within a threshold time of one another (see Fig. 7A-7B and their description, which determine that devices are co-located if they both occupied a location within a time range T1-T2. This is equivalent to determining contemporaneous co-location as occurring within a threshold time.).
Claims 31-34 and 36: see rejection of claims 22, 26, 23, 29, and 25, respectively. Andreasson-Alen further discloses a system of building locational device connections comprising: a processor; and a memory including instructions that when executed cause the processor to perform the method of claim 22 (Fig. 4).
Claim 35: Andreasson-Alen does not disclose assigning a confidence score to the classified relationships, wherein the classified relationships are a searchable attribute. However, official notice is taken that both of these features were well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Determining confidence of an inferred conclusion was commonly practiced in the relevant fields, as was enabling users to search databases based on attributes stored with the data. Therefore it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to modify Andreasson-Alen-Martinez to include this, the rationale being to provide a transparent indication of the conclusion of a relationship type, thereby improving users’ understanding of the results; as well as to enable users to search the database which would improve user interaction and satisfaction with the system.
Claims 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andreasson-Alen in view of Martinez, US 20090428711.
Claim 28: Andreasson-Alen fails to disclose that co-location is based on the first mobile device and the second mobile device both being located within a predetermined bounded region and said logging is further based on satisfaction that no more than a maximum threshold number of mobile devices of the set of mobile devices are contemporaneously within the predetermined bounded region.
Martinez discloses a system in which relationships between user devices are inferred based on location data. Martinez ¶¶ 75-76. The location data of the devices are considered to be redundant when a large number of devices are found to be collocated. Id. ¶¶ 88-90. The POSITA would understand this as a disclosure that co-location is based on the first mobile device and the second mobile device both being located within a predetermined bounded region and said logging is further based on satisfaction that no more than a maximum threshold number of mobile devices of the set of mobile devices are contemporaneously within the predetermined bounded region.
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Andreasson-Alen with this teaching in Martinez, the rationale being to eliminate redundant information that does not accurately reflect relationships.
Claims 29-30 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andreasson and Alen in view of Yamada, US 20110276571.
Claim 29: Andreasson-Alen does not disclose, but Yamada discloses: classifying the relationship as one of: co-workers if occurrences only occur on weekdays; romantic partners if occurrences occur across a wide array of location types over an extended time period; or friends if occurrences occur only in recreational locations (¶¶ 36-40 and 66-69).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Andreasson-Alen with these teachings in Yamada, the rationale being to provide greater insight into the various types of relationships between users, thereby improving the user experience.
Claim 30: see rejection of claim 35 above.
Claims 37-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andreasson, Alen, and Do, US 20120239291.
Claim 37: Andreasson-Alen (see above) discloses a method of building locational device connections comprising:
collecting a set of location coordinates from a set of mobile devices during mobile device application engagement (Device locations and their corresponding times are collected over a period of time. Andreasson ¶¶ 69-72.);
generating a link in a database between the first mobile device and the second mobile device based on a number or frequency of logged occurrences of contemporaneously co-location therebetween (If a number of coinciding co-locations are detected, devices are determined to be related. Andreasson ¶74. This implicitly includes linking, or supplying an indication of a relationship between, the devices in a database.). and
classifying the link in the database into tiers based on a number or frequency of the logged occurrences wherein progressively larger or more frequent amounts correspond to progressively higher tiers (Alen ¶¶ 9, 66, and 77-78).
Andreasson-Alen does not disclose filtering the set of location coordinates from the set of mobile devices; identifying a location from the set of location coordinates frequently associated with the set of mobile devices; associating the location with a first mobile device and a second mobile device of the set of mobile devices.
Do discloses filtering the set of location coordinates from the set of mobile devices; identifying a location from the set of location coordinates frequently associated with the set of mobile devices; associating the location with a first mobile device and a second mobile device of the set of mobile devices (¶¶ 30 and 61).
It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Andreasson-Alen with teachings found in Do, the rationale being to provide more accurate and useful location data. See Do ¶ 5.
Claims 38-42 see rejection of claims 23-25, and 29-30, respectively.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT J HANCE whose telephone number is (571)270-5319. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11:00am-7:00pm 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, Michael Fuelling can be reached at (571) 270-1367. 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.
/ROBERT J HANCE/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3992
1 The examiner does not concede this to be the case. The claim includes no detail regarding how the location data is collected. While the specification (see e.g. ¶¶ 21 and 36) describes technological ways of collecting location data, it remains withing the BRI of the claim that the location data is collected mentally, for example by a person observing the mobile devices and writing their location.
Prosecution Insights