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
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 5, 8, 10-11, 13, 15 and 19-20 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to pending claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
CLAIM REJECTIONS - 35 USC § 103
I. 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.
II. CLAIMS 1-4, 6-8, 10-12, 15 AND 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LUO et al (US 2015/0332329) in view of BERGER et al (US 2013/0016636).
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).
LUO et al teach the limitations, as applied above, yet fail to explicitly teach “at least one prime beacon, wherein the at least one prime beacon is a fixed, manmade beacon; wherein the at least one prime beacon transmits a unique space-network identifier…wherein the space-network model comprises at least one reference datum, wherein the at least one reference datum is the unique space-network identifier received from the at least prime beacon”.
BERGER et al teach a remote sensor node, RSN, having a unique identifier (paras 0128, 0258, 0301, 0379, 0733) having a beacon including a location identification where the beacon is being received by a wireless communications device and broadcasting the beacon signal (paras 0104, 0131, 0310, 0320). BERGER et al further teach a topological model that incorporates effective data from network elements and probes for association and transfer (paras 0767, 0854-855). 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 BERGER et al for the purpose of provisioning a beacon capable of transmitting a unique ID for association with a network node, which is well-known in the art for providing identification data communicated via beacons.
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 with BERGER et al teach the system of claim 1, LUO et al further teach 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; BERGER et al: paras 0622, 1184—access by authorized agents).
Per claim 3, LUO et al with BERGER et al teach the system of claim 2, LUO et al further teach 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; BERGER et al: paras 0035, 0104, 0131—a monitoring beacon within a certain proximity including location information).
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 with BERGER et al teach the system of claim 1, LUO et al further teach the system further comprising a server platform operable to specify the location-based services (paras 0003, 0061, 0128-130, 0149—location-based services, event and advertising; BERGER et al: paras 0098-99, 0128, 0224—server with location association gateway to a stored gateway).
Per claim 6, LUO et al with BERGER et al teach the system of claim 1, LUO et al further teach the system 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; BERGER et al: paras 0399, 0700—compliancy with rules to govern gateway controller based on GPS coordinates).
Per claim 7, LUO et al with BERGER et al teach the system of claim 1, LUO et al further teach the system 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; BERGER et al: paras 0260-261, 0288, 0377-378, 0775—automatically updating location and status data in near real-time).
Per claim 10, LUO et al with BERGER et al teach the system of claim 8, LUO et al further teach wherein the multiplicity of network devices is operable to learn and update physical location information based on IP address information and the unique 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; BERGER et al: paras 1055, 1071, 1114-1118, 1133—RSN associated with a certain UID to a customer-specified IP address based on enforced business rules, determine a location of the asset with varying degrees of accuracy).
Per claim 11, LUO et al with BERGER et al teach the system of claim 8, LUO et al further teach wherein at least one network device of the multiplicity of network devices is configured to emit the 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; BERGER et al: paras 0043, 0046, 0056, 0067-70—using RFID to determine device GPS location).
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 with BERGER et al teach the system of claim 8, LUO et al further teach 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; BERGER et al: paras 0390—open-space range).
III. 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 BERGER et al (US 2013/0016636) and ANDERSON (US 2012/0190386).
Per claim 5, LUO et al with BERGER 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 the at least one reference datum”. BERGER et al further teach a topological model that incorporates effective data from network elements and probes for association and transfer (paras 0767, 0854-855). 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 BERGER et al and 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 with BERGER et al and ANDERSON 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”. BERGER et al further teach RSN assignment and gateway server assignment of unique area ID (paras 0291, 0295, 0331, 1005). 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 BERGER et al and 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.
IV. 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 BERGER et al (US 2013/0016636) and RAHNAMA (US 2015/0031398).
Per claim 9, LUO et al with BERGER 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”. BERGER et al further teach employing a geofencing application for creating geo-fences (paras 1076, 1130). RAHNAMA teaches applying rules for a 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 BERGER et al and 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
V. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 2009/0322510; US 2010/0222081.
VI. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
VII. 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
Prosecution Insights