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 .
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
P = paragraph e.g. P[0001] = paragraph[0001]
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.
Claims 2 and 5-17 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.
As per Claim 2, the claim is unclear as it is unclear when the “triggering” step occurs with respect to the steps of Claim 1.
Furthermore, the “beacon signal” is already detected by the “first device” in the steps of Claim 1, and it is unclear if the “signal from the second device” is or is not equivalent to the “beacon signal”.
Furthermore, it is unclear if Claim 2 is presenting an alternative to Claim 1, as the “first device” of Claim 1 does not require any “triggering” or a “scan” to detect the “beacon signal”.
Therefore, the claim is unclear.
As per Claim 5, the claim recites “prior to detecting the beacon signal, determining that the beacon signal is beyond a detection range of the first device; and in response to determining that the beacon signal is beyond the detection range of the first device, preventing display of the graphical indicator in the proximity GUI”.
It is unclear how it is determined that the “beacon signal is beyond a detection range of the first device”. Because a step or process to determine that the “beacon signal is beyond a detection range of the first device” is critical to the claimed invention, the omission of such a step causes the scope of the claim to be unclear. The Examiner notes that merely reciting “determining” does not indicate a process that is performed that indicates how it is determined that the “beacon signal is beyond a detection range of the first device”, and additionally, the specification does not appear to recite any determination of a “detection range” which would presumably be required in order to determine if something is “beyond” the detection range.
Therefore, the claim is unclear.
As per Claim 8, the claim recites “in response to detecting the beacon signal, swapping locations in which the first and second sets of information are presented, such that the second set of information is presented in the first portion of the co-presence portion and the first set of information is presented in the second portion of the co-presence portion; and adding the selected graphical indicator to the second set of information”.
It is unclear when the “swapping” step occurs with respect to the steps of the parent claims. Furthermore, it is unclear how the “first set of information” and “second set of information” locations can be swapped at the same time that the “co-presence portion” is presented when detecting the “beacon signal” as detailed in Claim 1.
Specifically, the “co-presence portion” is only presented when detecting the “beacon signal” as detailed in Claim 1, yet Claim 8 recites that the “swapping” occurs “in response to detecting the beacon signal”, and it is then unclear how the “swapping” can occur for the sets of information of the “co-presence portion” at the same time that the “co-presence portion” is presented. The claims appear to imply that the “first set of information” and “second set of information” are simultaneously presented and swapped, which is unclear, as “swapping” implies that the “first set of information” and “second set of information” are first presented in a particular manner before the “swapping” occurs, yet it is unclear how that can happen if the “swapping” and presenting of the “co-presence portion” occurs simultaneously and immediately “in response to detecting the beacon signal”.
Therefore, the claim is unclear.
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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because Claim 20 is nominally directed to a storage medium and is therefore directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims broadly cover transient, propagating signals. Since a claim to a "storage medium" reasonably broadly covers both forms of non-transitory tangible media (e.g. memory, disk, tape) and transient, propagating signals (e.g. signals, carrier waves), it necessarily covers non-statutory subject matter. This is so because transient, propagating signals are not patentable subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Examiner Note: Applicant can amend to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments by adding the limitation “non-transitory” to the claim (i.e. A non-transitory machine-storage medium storing instructions …”), such an amendment would not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent, unless the specification does not support a non-transitory embodiment because a signal per se is the only viable embodiment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jackson et al. (US 2016/0029148).
Regarding Claim 1, Jackson et al. teaches the claimed method comprising:
detecting, by a first device associated with a first user, a beacon signal generated by a second device associated with a second user (“It will be appreciated that the sensor data will be broadcast between the watches at a suitable frequency to allow the user of a watch to be kept informed about the status of their competitors. For example, advertising channel data packets with additional sensor data may be periodically broadcast once every 30 seconds to 2 minutes, or broadcast at a rate that is dependent on the speed at which the user or users is travelling”, see P[0158] “…each watch may have a radar style screen 700 that shows the relative positions of all of the other watches that have been detected (i.e. from which advertising channel packets have been processed)”, see P[0169]);
generating co-presence information representing proximity between the first device and the second device based on detecting the beacon signal (“…each watch may have a radar style screen 700 that shows the relative positions of all of the other watches that have been detected (i.e. from which advertising channel packets have been processed)”, see P[0169]);
selecting a graphical indicator from a plurality of graphical indicators of co-presence based on the generated co-presence information (“The location of each watch may be indicated by a unique icon 702, 704, 706, which may be chosen by the users of the respective watches and transferred along with the sensor data”, see P[1069]); and
presenting a proximity graphical user interface (GUI) comprising a map portion and a co-presence portion using the selected graphical indicator (“As shown in FIG. 14, each watch may have a radar style screen 700 that shows the relative positions of all of the other watches that have been detected (i.e. from which advertising channel packets have been processed). The location of each watch may be indicated by a unique icon 702, 704, 706, which may be chosen by the users of the respective watches and transferred along with the sensor data”, see P[0169] and see FIG. 14).
Regarding Claim 2, Jackson et al. teaches the claimed method of claim 1, further comprising:
triggering the first device to scan for a signal from the second device (“Each watch may be set to process the advertising channel packets, the scanning request messages or the scanning response messages from all other devices”, see P[0157]).
Regarding Claim 3, Jackson et al. teaches the claimed method of claim 1, wherein the beacon signal is generated by a transmission device that comprises at least one of a Wi-Fi base station, a Bluetooth device, or an ultra-wide band emitting device (“…using a Bluetooth protocol…”, see P[0016]).
Regarding Claim 4, Jackson et al. teaches the claimed method of claim 1, wherein the first user is a rider of a trip, wherein the second user is a driver (“For example, the mobile device can be attached to a vehicle being used by the user, e.g. a bicycle, canoe, kayak or other similar vehicle. The mobile device could also be attached to an object being pushed or pulled by a user, such as a child-carrying buggy”, see P[0082]).
Regarding Claim 19, Jackson et al. teaches the claimed system comprising:
one or more hardware processors (see P[0092]-P[0094]); and
a storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more hardware processors, cause the one or more hardware processors to perform operations (see P[0092]-P[0094]) comprising:
detecting, by a first device associated with a first user, a beacon signal generated by a second device associated with a second user (“It will be appreciated that the sensor data will be broadcast between the watches at a suitable frequency to allow the user of a watch to be kept informed about the status of their competitors. For example, advertising channel data packets with additional sensor data may be periodically broadcast once every 30 seconds to 2 minutes, or broadcast at a rate that is dependent on the speed at which the user or users is travelling”, see P[0158] “…each watch may have a radar style screen 700 that shows the relative positions of all of the other watches that have been detected (i.e. from which advertising channel packets have been processed)”, see P[0169]);
generating co-presence information representing proximity between the first device and the second device based on detecting the beacon signal (“…each watch may have a radar style screen 700 that shows the relative positions of all of the other watches that have been detected (i.e. from which advertising channel packets have been processed)”, see P[0169]);
selecting a graphical indicator from a plurality of graphical indicators of co-presence based on the generated co-presence information (“The location of each watch may be indicated by a unique icon 702, 704, 706, which may be chosen by the users of the respective watches and transferred along with the sensor data”, see P[1069]); and
presenting a proximity graphical user interface (GUI) comprising a map portion and a co-presence portion using the selected graphical indicator (“As shown in FIG. 14, each watch may have a radar style screen 700 that shows the relative positions of all of the other watches that have been detected (i.e. from which advertising channel packets have been processed). The location of each watch may be indicated by a unique icon 702, 704, 706, which may be chosen by the users of the respective watches and transferred along with the sensor data”, see P[0169] and see FIG. 14).
Regarding Claim 20, Jackson et al. teaches the claimed machine-storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a machine, cause the machine to perform operations (see P[0092]-P[0094]) comprising:
detecting, by a first device associated with a first user, a beacon signal generated by a second device associated with a second user (“It will be appreciated that the sensor data will be broadcast between the watches at a suitable frequency to allow the user of a watch to be kept informed about the status of their competitors. For example, advertising channel data packets with additional sensor data may be periodically broadcast once every 30 seconds to 2 minutes, or broadcast at a rate that is dependent on the speed at which the user or users is travelling”, see P[0158] “…each watch may have a radar style screen 700 that shows the relative positions of all of the other watches that have been detected (i.e. from which advertising channel packets have been processed)”, see P[0169]);
generating co-presence information representing proximity between the first device and the second device based on detecting the beacon signal (“…each watch may have a radar style screen 700 that shows the relative positions of all of the other watches that have been detected (i.e. from which advertising channel packets have been processed)”, see P[0169]);
selecting a graphical indicator from a plurality of graphical indicators of co-presence based on the generated co-presence information (“The location of each watch may be indicated by a unique icon 702, 704, 706, which may be chosen by the users of the respective watches and transferred along with the sensor data”, see P[1069]); and
presenting a proximity graphical user interface (GUI) comprising a map portion and a co-presence portion using the selected graphical indicator (“As shown in FIG. 14, each watch may have a radar style screen 700 that shows the relative positions of all of the other watches that have been detected (i.e. from which advertising channel packets have been processed). The location of each watch may be indicated by a unique icon 702, 704, 706, which may be chosen by the users of the respective watches and transferred along with the sensor data”, see P[0169] and see FIG. 14).
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson et al. (2016/0029148) in view of DE JONG et al. (2022/0335807).
Regarding Claim 5, Jackson et al. does not expressly recite the claimed method of claim 1, further comprising:
prior to detecting the beacon signal, determining that the beacon signal is beyond a detection range of the first device; and
in response to determining that the beacon signal is beyond the detection range of the first device, preventing display of the graphical indicator in the proximity GUI.
However, DE JONG et al. (2022/0335807) teaches displaying circular indicators to show a distance between a first electronic device and a second electronic device if the second electronic device is not further than a threshold distance from the first electronic device (DE JONG et al.; see P[0388]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Jackson et al. with the teachings of DE JONG et al., and prior to detecting the beacon signal, determining that the beacon signal is beyond a detection range of the first device, and in response to determining that the beacon signal is beyond the detection range of the first device, preventing display of the graphical indicator in the proximity GUI, as rendered obvious by DE JONG et al. in order to provide for “displaying a geometric shape when within a threshold distance of the second electronic device provides a quick and efficient manner of indicating that the second electronic device is within the threshold distance of the first electronic device” (DE JONG et al.; see P[0389]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson et al. (2016/0029148) in view of DE JONG et al. (2022/0335807) further in view of Tolkin et al. (2017/0169535).
Regarding Claim 6, Jackson et al. does not expressly recite the claimed method of claim 5, wherein the co-presence portion comprises a first set of information identifying a pickup location for the first and second users and a second set of information identifying the second user, the first set of information being presented in a first portion of the co-presence portion and the second set of information being presented in a second portion of the co-presence portion.
However, Tolkin et al. (2017/0169535) teaches wherein the co-presence portion comprises a first set of information identifying a pickup location for the first and second users and a second set of information identifying the second user, the first set of information being presented in a first portion of the co-presence portion and the second set of information being presented in a second portion of the co-presence portion (Tolkin et al.; see P[0056] and FIG. 6E).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Jackson et al. with the teachings of Tolkin et al., and wherein the co-presence portion comprises a first set of information identifying a pickup location for the first and second users and a second set of information identifying the second user, the first set of information being presented in a first portion of the co-presence portion and the second set of information being presented in a second portion of the co-presence portion, as rendered obvious by Tolkin et al., in order to “indicate to the user that a pickup location is being selected. As an addition or an alternative, the interface can also indicate that a provider is being selected for the user” (Tolkin et al.; see P[0056]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson et al. (2016/0029148) in view of DE JONG et al. (2022/0335807) further in view of Tolkin et al. (2017/0169535), further in view of Radakovic et al. (2022/0082394).
Regarding Claim 7, Jackson et al. does not expressly recite the claimed method of claim 6, wherein the co-presence portion comprises an amount of time remaining before the second device arrives at the pickup location.
However, Radakovic et al. (2022/0082394) teaches displaying an amount of time remaining before the second device arrives at the pickup location (Radakovic et al.; see P[0082] and FIG. 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Jackson et al. with the teachings of Radakovic et al., and wherein the co-presence portion comprises an amount of time remaining before the second device arrives at the pickup location, as rendered obvious by Radakovic et al., in order to “provide wait time estimate data” (Radakovic et al.; see P[0082]).
Claims 8, 9 and 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson et al. (2016/0029148) in view of DE JONG et al. (2022/0335807) further in view of Tolkin et al. (2017/0169535), further in view of Chaiyochlarb et al. (9,378,467).
Regarding Claim 8, Jackson et al. does not expressly recite the claimed method of claim 6, further comprising:
in response to detecting the beacon signal, swapping locations in which the first and second sets of information are presented, such that the second set of information is presented in the first portion of the co-presence portion and the first set of information is presented in the second portion of the co-presence portion; and
adding the selected graphical indicator to the second set of information.
However, Chaiyochlarb et al. (9,378,467) teaches emphasizing higher priority notifications compared to lower priority notifications by positioning higher priority content in a top row of a UI, where context such as device motion and device location or other context may be used to determine priority (Chaiyochlarb et al.; see col.5, particularly lines 65-67, and col.6, particularly lines 1-14 and 59-67, and col.11, particularly lines 1-8, and col.19, particularly lines 28-54), where because the claimed “first portion” and “second portion” are clearly analogous to notifications (as seen in FIG. 6A of the present application), which clearly implies that a priority may change with a location and then result in “swapping” the priority of notifications and then “swapping” the presented positions of notifications, where a person having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to “swap” or reorder notifications or displayed content portions in accordance with any desired context, such as by swapping a notification or portion related to the “first set of information” with a notification or portion related to the “second set of information”, based on any obvious design choice of a desired context such as approaching the “beacon signal”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Jackson et al. with the teachings of Chaiyochlarb et al., and in response to detecting the beacon signal, swapping locations in which the first and second sets of information are presented, such that the second set of information is presented in the first portion of the co-presence portion and the first set of information is presented in the second portion of the co-presence portion, and adding the selected graphical indicator to the second set of information, as rendered obvious by Chaiyochlarb et al., so that “a device UI may be personalized to control the size and/or placement of objects such as application launch controls and notifications that reflect the prioritized activities” (Chaiyochlarb et al.; see col.5, particularly lines 23-40).
Regarding Claim 9, Jackson et al. teaches the claimed method of claim 8, further comprising:
determining that the co-presence information represents a first proximity between the first device and the second device (“The distance on the display from this point or icon of the icons for the other detected watches may be proportional to the actual distance to the other watches. The watch may only indicate other watches that are detected to be within a predetermined distance”, see P[0169]); and
selecting a first graphical indicator as the selected graphical indicator in response to determining that the co-presence information represents the first proximity between the first device and the second device (see FIG. 14).
Regarding Claim 11, Jackson et al. teaches the claimed method of claim 9, wherein the first proximity is determined in response to establishing a BLE connection between the first and second devices (“…the BLE protocol”, see P[0152]).
Regarding Claim 12, Jackson et al. teaches the claimed method of claim 9, further comprising:
determining that the co-presence information represents a second proximity between the first device and the second device (see FIG. 14); and
selecting a second graphical indicator as the selected graphical indicator in response to determining that the co-presence information represents the second proximity between the first device and the second device (see FIG. 14).
Regarding Claim 13, Jackson et al. teaches the claimed method of claim 12, wherein the second proximity comprises near proximity (see FIG. 14).
Regarding Claim 14, Jackson et al. teaches the claimed method of claim 12, wherein the second proximity corresponds to a first distance between the first and second devices that is less than 50 meters (see FIG. 14), where clearly if a watch indicated by “702”, “704” and/or “706” is located at the same location as the watch of the display, such as at the center of the display as described in P[0169], it would be displayed at the same location of the user and be at a location “less than 50 meters” away.
Regarding Claim 15, Jackson et al. teaches the claimed method of claim 12, further comprising:
determining that the co-presence information represents a third proximity between the first device and the second device (see FIG. 14); and
selecting a third graphical indicator as the selected graphical indicator in response to determining that the co-presence information represents the third proximity between the first device and the second device (see FIG. 14).
Regarding Claim 16, Jackson et al. teaches the claimed method of claim 15, wherein the third proximity comprises immediate proximity (see FIG. 14), where clearly any proximity may be displayed by the display of Jackson et al.
Regarding Claim 17, Jackson et al. teaches the claimed method of claim 15, wherein the second proximity corresponds to a second distance between the first and second devices that is less than 0.5 meters (see FIG. 14), where clearly if a watch indicated by “702”, “704” and/or “706” is located at the same location as the watch of the display, such as at the center of the display as described in P[0169], it would be displayed at the same location of the user and be at a location “less than 0.5 meters” away.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson et al. (2016/0029148) in view of DE JONG et al. (2022/0335807) further in view of Tolkin et al. (2017/0169535), further in view of Chaiyochlarb et al. (9,378,467), further in view of Ishikawa et al. (JP2000242898A).
Regarding Claim 10, Jackson et al. does not expressly recite the claimed method of claim 9, wherein the first graphical indicator comprises a first animation, the first proximity comprising far proximity.
However, the claim is directed to an obvious design choice, where Ishikawa et al. (JP2000242898A) teaches an animation corresponding to a symbol flashing on a display which shows relative positions of vehicles (Ishikawa et al; see P[0040]), where a wireless system used to transmit vehicle information may be a mobile phone (Ishikawa et al.; see P[0016]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Jackson et al. with the teachings of Ishikawa et al., and wherein the first graphical indicator comprises a first animation, the first proximity comprising far proximity, as rendered obvious by Ishikawa et al., in order to assist in “making situational judgments” (Ishikawa et al.; see P[0006]), and in order to notify a user of the presence of a second user.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson et al. (2016/0029148) in view of Werner et al. (2020/0359170).
Regarding Claim 18, Jackson et al. teaches the claimed method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining, by the first device…, a direction to the second device and a first distance between the first device and the second device (see FIG. 14); and
presenting, by the first device, real-time feedback representing the direction to the second device and the first distance between the first device and the second device (see FIG. 14).
Jackson et al. does not expressly recite the bolded portions of the claimed
determining, by the first device based on a UWB link comprising the beacon signal.
However, Werner et al. (2020/0359170) teaches obtaining distance and angle information for target mobile devices using UWB communication (Werner et al.; see P[0043]-P[0044] and FIGS. 6-7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Jackson et al. with the teachings of Werner et al., and determining, by the first device based on a UWB link comprising the beacon signal, as rendered obvious by Werner et al., in order to provide for “obtaining distance and angle information for target mobile devices” (Werner et al.; see P[0043]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISAAC G SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-9593. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8AM-5PM.
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, ANISS CHAD can be reached at 571-270-3832. 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.
/ISAAC G SMITH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662