DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-18 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant’s IDS submissions are deemed excessive and not conforming to the best practices for IDS submissions, as detailed below.
Applicant has no "duty to submit information which is not material to the patentability of any existing claim", and information is material to patentability only "when it is not cumulative to information already of record or being made of record in the application". See 37 CFR 1.56(a) & (b). An applicant’s duty of disclosure of material information is not satisfied by presenting a patent examiner with “a mountain of largely irrelevant data from which he is presumed to have been able, with his expertise and with adequate time, to have found the critical data. It ignores the real world conditions under which examiners work.” Rohm & Haas Co. v. Crystal Chemical Co., 722 F.2d 1556, 1573, 220 U.S.P.Q. 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). An applicant has a duty to not just disclose pertinent prior art references but to make a disclosure in such way as not to “bury” it within other disclosures of less relevant prior art. See Golden Valley Microwave Foods Inc. v. Weaver Popcorn Co. Inc., 24 U.S.P.Q.2d 1801 (N.D. Ind. 1992); Molins PLC v. Textron Inc., 26 U.S.P.Q.2d 1889, 1899 (D. Del. 1992); Penn Yan Boats, Inc. v. Sea Lark Boats, Inc. et al., 175 U.S.P.Q. 260, 272 (S.D. Fl. 1972).
3. The IDS’s filed between 11/13/2024 and 12/30/2025 are considered.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
4. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract does not describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details as the abstract is not directed towards the entire disclosure (e.g. the abstract makes no mention of shared location information). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
5. Claim(s) 1-4, 7-10, and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tharshanan et al. (US 2014/0329548 A1), hereinafter referred to as Tharsh.
In regard to claim 1, Tharsh discloses an electronic device, comprising:
a touch-sensitive surface; a display; one or more processors; memory storing one or more programs configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including instructions for (Fig. 3 and Paragraphs 0019-0021):
displaying, via the display, a messaging user interface including a message region with a plurality of messages sent between a first participant, a second participant, and a third participant in a message conversation, wherein the third participant is a user of the electronic device (Paragraph 0048, Paragraph 0049, Paragraph 0050, and Paragraph 0053: messaging user interface for exchanging and displaying messages between a user and a group of recipients);
receiving first shared location information associated with the first participant and second shared location information associated with the second participant (Paragraph 0053, Paragraph 0061, and Paragraph 0064: location information is received from the group of recipients);
in response to receiving the first shared location information associated with the first participant and the second shared location information associated with the second participant, displaying, via the display, a map depicting a location of the electronic device, a location of the first participant, and a location of the second participant (Paragraph 0012, Paragraph 0065, and Paragraph 0066: the received location information and user location information are displayed as markers on a map).
In regard to claim 2, Tharsh discloses wherein displaying the map further includes displaying information about the first participant and information about the second participant (Fig. 1, Fig. 7D, and Paragraph 0067: as illustrated information such as name, picture, and/or comet trials are displayed for the user and group of recipients).
In regard to claim 3, Tharsh discloses wherein the one or more programs further include instructions for: sending location information associated with the electronic device to a first external device associated with the first participant and to a second external device associated with the second participant (Paragraph 0055: location information of the user is sent to devices of the group of recipients).
In regard to claim 4, Tharsh discloses wherein the one or more programs further include instructions for: after a predetermined period of time has elapsed, ceasing to send the location information associated with the electronic device to the first external device associated with the first participant and to the second external device associated with the second participant (Paragraph 0077 lines 9-16, Paragraph 0079 lines 1-5, and Paragraph 0084: after a particular amount of time sharing session is terminated and location information is stopped being sent to the group of recipient devices).
In regard to claims 7-10, medium claims 7-10 correspond generally to device claims 1-4, respectively, and recite similar features in medium form, and therefore are rejected under the same rationale.
In regard to claims 13-16, method claims 13-16 correspond generally to device claims 1-4, respectively, and recite similar features in method form, and therefore are rejected under the same rationale.
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.
6. Claim(s) 5, 11, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tharshanan et al. (US 2014/0329548 A1), hereinafter referred to as Tharsh, and further in view of Cho et al. (US 2014/0018053 A1).
In regard to claim 5, while Tharsh teaches after a predetermined period of time has elapsed, ceasing to send the location information associated with the electronic device to the first external device associated with the first participant and to the second external device associated with the second participant and further teaches sending a message indicating location sharing is terminated (Paragraph 0080), they fail to explicitly show the after the predetermined period of time has elapsed, displaying a visual indication that the location information associated with the electronic device has ceased being shared, as recited in the claims. Cho teaches sharing information with devices similar to that of Tharsh. In addition, Cho further teaches
output message indicating sharing has ended to each terminal (Fig. 12D and Paragraph 0208 lines 10-14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Tharsh and Cho before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the after a predetermined period of time has elapsed, ceasing to send the location information associated with the electronic device to the first external device associated with the first participant and to the second external device associated with the second participant and sending a message indicating location sharing is terminated taught by Tharsh to include the output message indicating sharing has ended to each terminal of Cho, in order to obtain after the predetermined period of time has elapsed, displaying a visual indication that the location information associated with the electronic device has ceased being shared. It would have been advantageous for one to utilize such a combination as explicitly notifying users that sharing has ended, therefore advantageously allowing users to easily understand that certain functionality is no longer being performed.
In regard to claim 11, medium claim 11 corresponds generally to device claim 5 and recites similar features in medium form and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
In regard to claim 17, method claim 17 corresponds generally to device claim 5 and recites similar features in method form and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
7. Claim(s) 6, 12, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tharshanan et al. (US 2014/0329548 A1), hereinafter referred to as Tharsh, and further in view of Oplinger et al. (US 2015/0172393 A1).
In regard to claim 6, while Tharsh teaches displaying, via the display, a map depicting a location of the electronic device, a location of the first participant, and a location of the second participant, they fail to show the while displaying the map, detecting one or more inputs corresponding to the depicted location of the first participant; and in response to detecting the one or more inputs corresponding to the depicted location of the first participant, displaying an option to provide directions to or from the depicted location of the first participant, as recited in the claims. Oplinger teaches displaying a map and location sharing similar to that of Tharsh. In addition, Oplinger further teaches
while displaying a map, detecting one or more inputs corresponding to a depicted location of a first participant; and in response to detecting the one or more inputs corresponding to the depicted location of the first participant, displaying an option to provide directions to or from the depicted location of the first participant (Fig. 5D element 526, Paragraph 0065, Paragraph 0066 lines 1-3, and Paragraph 0066 lines 10-12: user selects a location of a first participant displayed on a map which causes additional information to be displayed with a directions control to request directions to the location of the participant).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Tharsh and Oplinger before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the displaying, via the display, a map depicting a location of the electronic device, a location of the first participant, and a location of the second participant taught by Tharsh to include the while displaying a map, detecting one or more inputs corresponding to a depicted location of a first participant; and in response to detecting the one or more inputs corresponding to the depicted location of the first participant, displaying an option to provide directions to or from the depicted location of the first participant of Oplinger, in order to obtain while displaying the map, detecting one or more inputs corresponding to the depicted location of the first participant; and in response to detecting the one or more inputs corresponding to the depicted location of the first participant, displaying an option to provide directions to or from the depicted location of the first participant. It would have been advantageous for one to utilize such a combination as increasing functionality by providing additional controls for a user to physically locate another user.
In regard to claim 12, medium claim 12 corresponds generally to device claim 6 and recites similar features in medium form and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
In regard to claim 18, method claim 18 corresponds generally to device claim 6 and recites similar features in method form and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shan et al. (US 2016/0295384 A1), see at least the abstract.
Prado et al. (US 9411506 B1), see at least the abstract.
Husain et al. (US 2015/0119080 A1), see at least the abstract.
Bridge et al. (US 2014/0066105 A1), see at least the abstract.
Bocking et al. (US 2010/0262915 A1), see at least the abstract.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS S ULRICH whose telephone number is (571)270-1397. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4.
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, Fred Ehichioya can be reached at (571)272-4034. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
10. 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.
/Nicholas Ulrich/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2179
Prosecution Insights