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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/6/24 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, 11, 12, 15, 16, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2013/0303192 by Louboutin et al. (Louboutin).
With respect to claim 1, Louboutin teaches a method of providing a service in a map-based virtual space, the method comprising:
receiving at least one of interest keyword information, place selection information or motion information from a first account of a first user terminal; (Paragraph 17, 18, 35, 28, 42-44 – user interest/intent information is received, for example coffee shop keywording, user selection of a particular point of interest can be received, user location information and route information is received)
transmitting, to the first user terminal, data of a street view based on at least one of the place selection information or the motion information corresponding to the first account of the first user terminal; (Paragraph 17-18, 42-44, 8 – map is displayed for route (e.g. street view ) to selected of point of interest that is based on current user location) and
transmitting data for displaying a marketing content on the street view of the first account of the first user terminal based on at least one of the interest keyword information and or distance information, the distance information including a first distance between a location of the first account of the first user terminal and a location of the marketing content, wherein the transmitting data for displaying the marketing content comprises: transmitting data for displaying the marketing content when the first distance is less than a first predetermined distance. (Paragraph 17-18, 42-44, 4, 5, Fig. 3– the map with the displayed route may be further updated to display additional points of interest with promotional material (such as coupons and advertisements). The additional promotional material is displayed when a user is within a specified distance from the point of interest the material corresponds to (steps 316-318)).
With respect to claim 4, Louboutin teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the place selection information comprises at least one of a first place selection based on the map information, a second place selection based on a place search, a third place selection based on a search record, or a fourth place selection based on a keyword search. (Paragraph 17, 18, 42, - selection information can include selection from a list of interests as well as additional points of interests based on distance)
With respect to claim 5, Louboutin teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the street view comprises at least one of a two-dimensional (2D) map conversion object, at least one first account determined based on location information, at least one second account determined based on the interest keyword information, another account invitation object, or a profile view object. (Paragraphs 17-18 – map displaying route has users current location (i.e. at least one first account based on location info)).
With respect to claim 6, Louboutin teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the motion information comprises a signal determined based on at least one of a moving distance, a direction change, or a movement speed change of the first user terminal. (Paragraphs 43-45 – motion information is indicative of both distance and direction as it includes a specified route as well as determination of coming within a specified distance of additional points of interest)
With respect to claim 11, Louboutin teaches the method of claim 1, wherein a profile view displayed on the first user terminal comprises at least one of a profile setting object, a profile image, a state message, job authentication information, place authentication information, interest keyword information, or a content uploaded by the first user terminal. (Paragraph 35 – interest keyword information, for example coffee shops)
With respect to claim 12, Louboutin as modified teaches the method of claim 1, wherein a content view displayed on the first user terminal comprises at least one of a place movement object, an interest keyword, a place captured image, an account list, a response object, or an opening determination object. (Paragraphs 17, 43 – additional points of interest can include attractions and landmarks corresponding to intent)
Claim 15, 16, 18, 19 and 20 are similar in scope to claims 1, 4, and 6 and are rejected based on the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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(s) 2, 8-10, 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Louboutin in view of US 10,305,850 by Aziz (Aziz).
With respect to claim 2, Louboutin teaches the method of claim 1, but does not disclose further comprising: receiving a chat request from the first account of the first user terminal for requesting a chat with a second account of a second user terminal; determining whether a second distance between the location of the first account of the first user terminal and a location of the second account of the second user terminal is less than a second predetermined distance; and providing a chat service between the first account of the first user terminal and the second account of the second user terminal based on whether the chat is accepted and whether the second distance is less than the second predetermined distance.
Aziz teaches receiving a chat request from the first account of the first user terminal for requesting a chat with a second account of a second user terminal; determining whether a second distance between the location of the first account of the first user terminal and a location of the second account of the second user terminal is less than a second predetermined distance; and providing a chat service between the first account of the first user terminal and the second account of the second user terminal based on whether the chat is accepted and whether the second distance is less than the second predetermined distance. (Fig. 9, Col. 1 lines 50-60, Col. 5 line 60 – Col. 6 line 24, Col. 9 lines 8-41, Col. 10 – lines 14-34 – a request to initiate a chat session can be based on determination of proximity of a contact/friend and relate permissions. For example, Fig. 9 shows users within a predefined proximity of the current user, the current user can select that the chat button to request a chat session)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the map system of Louboutin include the map chat service of Aziz. One would be motivated to have this it is desirable to enhance mapping and navigational application with the services for providing awareness of the activities, locations of friends and allowing chat services with them (Aziz Col. 1 lines 15-39).
With respect to claim 8, Louboutin as modified teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the receiving of the chat request comprises: receiving an input signal for selecting the second account displayed on the street view of the first user terminal; transmitting account information corresponding to the second account to the first user terminal; and receiving the chat request for the second account from the first user terminal, wherein the account information comprises at least one of identity authentication information, job authentication information, place authentication information, or interest keyword information corresponding to the second account. (Aziz – Fig. 9, Fig. 5, col. 9 lines 8-41 includes at least identify authentication for the purpose of satisfying privacy control features – e.g. only providing location information to certain friends/contacts)
With respect to claim 9, Louboutin as modified teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the providing of the chat service comprises providing the chat service through a chat window, and wherein the chat window comprises, as a background, an image displayed based on at least one of image information of a perspective view or shared content information. (Aziz – Fig. 5, Col. 10 lines 14-34 users can initiate chat from the map an chat without leaving the map portal)
With respect to claim 10, Louboutin as modified teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the providing of the chat service comprises: providing a private chat service in which only accounts satisfying a predetermined condition are able to participate, wherein the predetermined condition comprises at least one of a place condition and or a password condition. (Aziz - col. 9 lines 8-41 – users can set privacy settings to be specific to particular locations (place condition) on a user/contact granular level)
With respect to claim 13, Louboutin as modified teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the providing of the chat service comprises: when a predetermined condition corresponding to the second distance is not satisfied, transmitting quest information for satisfying the predetermined condition corresponding to the second distance to the first user terminal; and when a quest completion signal based on the quest information is received from the first user terminal, providing the chat service. (Aziz - Col. 10 lines 14-34 – users can search for friends within a search box which can expand the map view accordingly and provide directions to the friend)
With respect to claim 14, Louboutin as modified teaches the method of claim 13, wherein the quest information comprises a quest for inducing the first account of the first user terminal to move so that the first account of the first user terminal and the second account of the second user terminal are close to each other to have the second predetermined distance or less. (Aziz - Col. 10 lines 14-34 – users can search for friends within a search box which can expand the map view accordingly and provide directions to the friend)
Claim(s) 3, 7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Louboutin in view of US 2016/0065629 by Emoff (Emoff).
With respect to claim 3, Louboutin teaches the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the transmitting data of the street view comprises: determining location information and field of view information of the first account in the virtual space based on at least one of the place selection information or the motion information; determining image information of a perspective view to be displayed on the first user terminal based on the location information and the field of view information; and transmitting the image information to the first user terminal.
Emoff teaches determining location information and field of view information of the first account in the virtual space based on at least one of the place selection information or the motion information; determining image information of a perspective view to be displayed on the first user terminal based on the location information and the field of view information; and transmitting the image information to the first user terminal. (Paragraphs 6-9, 81, 83, 88, Fig. 4B, Fig. 6 – Emoff generally teaches proximity based social networking where locations of users is monitored and when a user is proximate to another user, they may share content for example. This includes a live camera field of view image of a specific location or alternatively the use of a predetermined street-level image corresponding to the user location. Accordingly a perspective view is used for the specific location information of a user that presents, for example, a proximate user icon and associated content)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the mapping system of Louboutin include the proximity perspective view of Emoff. One would be motivated to have this as there is desire to provide social networking services specific to geographic locations of the users and assist in connections thereof (Emoff paragraphs 3-5).
With respect to claim 7, Louboutin as modified teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the determining of the location information and the field of view information comprises: determining the location information and the field of view information based on time information, wherein the time information comprises information on one time point among a plurality of time points corresponding to a corresponding place. (Based on the same logic in the combination of claim 3, Emoff - Paragraphs 6-9, 81, 83, 88, Fig. 4B, Fig. 6 - teaches the use of live-camera feed for field of view or a stored street-level view, both of which are tied to a specific time)
Claim 17 is similar in scope to claim 3 and is rejected based on the same rationale.
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 12,184,595. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claims 1-22 of U.S. patent 12,184,595 contain every element of claims 1-20 of the instant application and thus anticipate the claims of the instant application. Claims 1-20 of the instant application therefore are not patently distinct from the earlier patent claims and as such are unpatentable over obvious-type double patenting. A later patent/application claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier claim if the later claim is anticipated by the earlier claim. "A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim." In re Lonqi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225 USPQ at 651.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID R LAZARO whose telephone number is (571)272-3986. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30.
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, Emmanuel Moise can be reached at 571-272-3865. 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.
/DAVID R LAZARO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455
Prosecution Insights