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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 1, 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 15 fails to fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the method recited in independent claim 15 does not include a hardware or device implementation for performing the method steps. Consequently, the method in accordance with its broadest reasonable interpretation covers a series of acts that can be performed abstractly, by hand or by computer-implementation. Without recitation of an additional element of a hardware processor, memory or structural computer component, the claims are drawn to abstract ideas. Dependent claims 16-20 likewise, inherit the same rejection from their respective independent claim and are therefore non-statutory.
Claim 1 comprises: “least one network device and at least one database in network communication; wherein the at least one database is configured to store a space-network model binding Internet Protocol (IP) addresses and physical locations; wherein the space-network model comprises a plurality of localized portions decoupled from one another; wherein the at least one network device is configured to emit a unique space-network identifier; and wherein the at least one database is configured to store at least one geofence for the location- based services.”. Claim 8 comprises a: “server platform and at least one database constructed and configured for network communication with a multiplicity of network devices; wherein the at least one database is configured to store a space-network model binding Internet Protocol (IP) addresses and physical locations; wherein the space-network model comprises a plurality of localized portions decoupled from one another; wherein the at least one database is operable to store at least one geofence for the location- based services; and wherein the multiplicity of network devices is operable to learn the at least one geofence via network communication with the server platform and the at least one database”.
Furthermore, Claims 1, 8 and 15 are directed to the abstract idea of a method for manipulating human activities (“storing a space-network model, emitting a unique identifier, storing at least one geofence, learn at least one geofence, retrieving information”) [Electric Power Group; West View; SAP America], such as collecting temporal statistics and computing results based on the statistics. As in the case with Electric Power Group; West View; SAP America, the claimed invention involves collecting data/temporal statistics for an element and computing results based on the statistics received from the elements (i.e., computing a spatial correlation, computing a port dynamic weight). There is no actual performance improvement or any other improvement to the computer-related environment or technology. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because they merely state implementing the abstract idea for an element in a computing environment. These claims fail to provide meaningful and structural limitations that would transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea, such that the claims amount to significantly more that the abstract idea itself. MPEP §2106.05(d) discloses that electronic transmittal of the result of an abstract idea is typically a well-understood routine and conventional step.
Additionally, using a generic computer tool such as a “space-network model” is yet another tool that can be used to implement mental steps, tying an abstract idea with generic tools or just “apply it" type language to computer tools such as models or do not help integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP §2106.05(f)). The features do not represent an improvement to technology, but rather reciting the very nature of storing a space-network model, which is just the application of generic computer components to an abstract idea. See Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., Case No. 2023-2437, pp. 11-13, (Fed. Cir. Apr. 18, 2025). As result, when additional features of the claim, when considered alone and in combination, are still directed to an abstract idea which contains nothing significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The recitation of hardware via “a processor” or “a computer” does not help integrate the invention into a practical application or transform the invention into something significantly more than the abstract idea itself because the process is only forwarding a generic computer component that implements the recited abstract idea as instructions. As result, Claim 1 is not patent eligible. As result, additional features of the claim, when considered alone and in combination, are still directed to an abstract idea which contains nothing significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Claims 8 and 15 contain claim limitations that are substantially equivalent to Claim 1 and are therefore rejected on the same basis.
Claim Interpretation
III. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
IV. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
V. CLAIM 1 of this application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “one database is configured to store” in Claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
CLAIM REJECTIONS - 35 USC § 102
VI. 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.
VII. CLAIMS 1-4, 6-8, 10-12, 15 AND 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by LUO et al (US 2015/0332329).
Per claim 1, LUO et al teach a system for providing location-based services, comprising:
at least one network device and at least one database in network communication (paras 0050, 0058—multiple databases);
wherein the at least one database is configured to store a space-network model binding Internet Protocol (IP) addresses and physical locations (paras 0050-51, 0059-60, 0079, 0092—storing geographic places and IP addresses, databases for storing geofence data and IP regions corresponding to respective IP addresses);
wherein the space-network model comprises a plurality of localized portions decoupled from one another (paras 0003-4, 0077, 0084—location-based services and spatial indices from a spatial index generation module for representing the areas defined by the boundary definition module to create geo-fences for storing in the geo-fence database and a spatial database for handling spatial queries);
wherein the at least one network device is configured to emit a unique space-network identifier (paras 0052, 0054-55, 0084, 0100, 0127—place identifier, profile associated with mobile user identifier, convert the location data into spatial index representing the same, for ease of use by the geo-fencing module, each geo-fence entry in the database includes the spatial indices associated with the respective place together with other information about the respective place); and
wherein the at least one database is configured to store at least one geofence for the location-based services (paras 0003, 0050, 0061, 0084, 0088, 0096, 0128—geo-fence database, spatial database for storing created geo-fences, location-based services and advertising).
Claim 8 contains limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 1, and are therefore rejected under same basis.
Per claim 2, LUO et al teach the system of claim 1, wherein the at least one network device comprises a fencing agent in network communication with the at least one database, wherein the fencing agent is operable derive a unique IP address for the at least one network device from a physical location of the at least one network device, and wherein the fencing agent is operable to derive a physical location of the at least one network device from a corresponding unique IP address using the space-network model (paras 0050-51, 0059-60, 0068-70, 0088, 0091—advertisers and agents for communication with database to access geofence data and location information of the mobile user device associated with their respective IP addresses and GPS based location data using spatial data and location-based services and advertising).
Per claim 3, LUO et al teach the system of claim 2, wherein the fencing agent is operable to configure a beacon based on location information and a corresponding accuracy value (paras 0102, 0136, 0151—trigger accuracy is computed and is attached to the place to give mobile advertisers another metric on which to decide whether to bid, allowing more accurate determination of the locations of the mobile users with respect to the locations of the businesses of interest).
Claim 15 contains limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claims 1-3, and are therefore rejected under same basis.
Per claim 4, LUO et al teach the system of claim 1, further comprising a server platform operable to specify the location-based services (paras 0003, 0061, 0128-130, 0149—location-based services, event and advertising).
Per claim 6, LUO et al teach the system of claim 1, further comprising a multiplicity of devices in network communication with the at least one network device, wherein the multiplicity of devices is operable to perform tasks in compliance with entitlements within the at least one geofence (paras 0003-5, 0049, 0085-86, 0088—mobile devices, geo-fence map overlay used in ad campaigning for excluding certain mobile users not associated with the location or business).
Per claim 7, LUO et al teach the system of claim 1, further comprising a multiplicity of devices in network communication with the at least one network device, wherein the multiplicity of devices is operable to generate the space-network model and update the space-network model for the region of interest in real time (paras 0003-5, 0030-33, 0049, 0059-60, 0084, 0103—mobile devices, the mobile device data including location information, mobile device information and mobile user information, IP region creation module, IP region database and point-of-interest, POI; paras 0069, 0071, 0133—content update, real-time).
Per claim 10, LUO et al teach the system of claim 8, wherein the multiplicity of network devices is operable to learn and update physical location information based on IP address information and the space-network model in real time, wherein the location information is operable to be updated by an accuracy value wherein the accuracy value is a confidence level in precision of the physical location information for a network device (paras 0069, 0071, 0133—content update, real-time; paras 0102, 0136, 0151—trigger accuracy is computed and is attached to the place to give mobile advertisers another metric on which to decide whether to bid, allowing more accurate determination of the locations of the mobile users with respect to the locations of the businesses of interest).
Per claim 11, LUO et al teach the system of claim 8, wherein at least one network device of the multiplicity of network devices is configured to emit a unique space-network identifier comprising a binding of a current unique IP address for the at least one network device and physical location information for the at least one network device (paras 0052, 0054-55, 0084, 0100, 0127—place identifier, profile associated with mobile user identifier, convert the location data into spatial index representing the same, for ease of use by the geo-fencing module, each geo-fence entry in the database includes the spatial indices associated with the respective place together with other information about the respective place; paras 0050-51, 0059-60, 0079, 0092—storing geographic places and IP addresses, databases for storing geofence data and IP regions corresponding to respective IP addresses).
Claim 19 contains limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 11, and are therefore rejected under same basis.
Per claim 12, LUO et al teach the system of claim 8, wherein at least one network device of the multiplicity of network devices is fixed with a predetermined spatial density within the at least one geofence (paras 0077, 0084, 0086-87, 0094, 0100—determining spatial index, line segments, point of interest and any fixed point on a map for ease of use by geo-fencing module).
CLAIM REJECTIONS - 35 USC § 103
VIII. 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.
IX. CLAIMS 5, 13-14 AND 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LUO et al (US 2015/0332329) in view of ANDERSON (US 2012/0190386).
Per claim 5, LUO et al teach the system of claim 1, as applied above, yet fail to explicitly teach wherein each physical location is assigned a unique IP address in a topological space, wherein the topological space is pinned to a topography based on a reference datum. ANDERSON teaches network topologies and topographic maps (paras 1630, 1675) of devices with assigned IP addresses (paras 0362, 0443, 0723). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to combine the teachings of LUO et al with ANDERSON for the purpose of provisioning IP addresses in a topological space, which is well-known in the art for mapping and tracking the location of IP addressed devices.
Claims 13 and 20 contain limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 5, and are therefore rejected under same basis.
Per claim 14, LUO et al teach the system of claim 8, as applied above, yet fail to explicitly teach wherein each physical location is assigned a unique IP address in the space-network model, and wherein information relating to each physical location is encoded in the corresponding IP addresses. ANDERSON teaches assigning unique ID number which is the IP address (paras 0122, 0935-936, 1061). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to combine the teachings of LUO et al with ANDERSON for the purpose of provisioning IP addresses relating to the physical location of network devices, which is well-known in the art for uniquely identifying, mapping and tracking the location of IP addressed devices.
X. CLAIMS 9 AND 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LUO et al (US 2015/0332329) in view of RAHNAMA (US 2015/0031398).
Per claim 9, LUO et al teach the system of claim 8, as applied above, yet fail to explicitly teach wherein the server platform is further operable to specify rules for the location-based services within the at least one geofence, wherein the at least one database is further operable to store the rules, wherein the multiplicity of network devices is further operable to learn the rules via network communication with the server platform and/or the at least one database, and wherein the multiplicity of network devices is operable to implement the rules for the location-based services within the at least one geofence. RAHNAMA teaches applying rules for geo-fence address database when implementing the location-based services for geo-fencing (paras 0014, 0025, 0045, 0047, 0053). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to combine the teachings of LUO et al with RAHNAMA for the purpose of specifying rules stored in the database for implementing geo-fencing, which is well-known for generating and accessing geo-fencing data.
Claims 16-18 contain limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 9, and are therefore rejected under same basis.
Conclusion
XII. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 2015/0052599; USPN 9,820,231.
XIII. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTIE D SHINGLES whose telephone number is (571)272-3888. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 10am-7pm.
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, Kamal Divecha can be reached on 571-272-5863. 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.
/KRISTIE D SHINGLES/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2453