DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-19 are pending.
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 .
Examiner Comment
The examiner recommends filing a written authorization for Internet communication in response to the present action. Doing so permits the USPTO to communicate with Applicant using Internet email to schedule interviews or discuss other aspects of the application. Without a written authorization in place, the USPTO will not respond via Internet email to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122. The preferred method of providing authorization is by filing form PTO/SB/439, available at: https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms. See MPEP § 502.03 for other methods of providing written authorization.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/24/24 has been acknowledged and considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claims 1-4, 8, 14, 16, 18 and 19, the claims recite alternative language, i.e. using the term “or” and “one of”, and as such, the Examiner interprets certain features to not be required due to the claim language listing the features in the alternative. The rejection below specifies the particular limitations.
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.
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.
This application Claims 1-3, 5-7 and 9-16 include 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: “A device for generating…the device comprising: a network connection information reception unit configured to receive… an address input unit configured to receive… a meta spacetime access gate generation unit configured to acquire…” (Claim 1); “the meta spacetime access gate generation unit acquires…” (Claim 2); “address input unit selects…” (Claim 3); “the meta spacetime access gate generation unit generates…” (Claim 5); “the meta spacetime access gate generation unit generates…”(Claim 6); “the meta spacetime access gate generation unit generates…” (Claim 7); ““the meta spacetime access gate generation unit generates…” (Claim 9); “the meta spacetime access gate generation unit generates…” (Claim 10); “a distance radius configuration unit configured to provide…” (Claim 11); “the meta spacetime access gate generation unit groups…” (Claim 12); “the meta spacetime access gate generation unit…assigns…” (Claim 13); “a unit configured to: receiving…receiving…receiving…identify…search…provide…” (Claim 14); “the unit identifies…searches…” (Claim 15); and “the unit identifies…searches…” (Claim 16);
Per Federal Register [Vol. 84, No. 4, Monday Jan 7, 2019] guidance, pg. 59:
The following is a list of non-structural generic placeholders that may invoke § 112(f): "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for." This list is not exhaustive and other non-structural terms may invoke § 112(f). [see MPEP 2181(I)(A)]
Since the claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claims recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. SEE ALSO MPEP 2181: Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim limitation that invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is the structure, material or act described in the specification as performing the entire claimed function and equivalents to the disclosed structure, material or act. As a result, section 112(f) or pre-AIA section 112, sixth paragraph, limitations will, in some cases, be afforded a more narrow interpretation than a limitation that is not crafted in "means plus function" format.
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 1-3, 5-7 and 9-16 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.
Regarding claim 1, the non-specialized functionalities of “a network connection information reception unit configured to receive…an address input unit configured to receive…”; as well as, the specialized functionality of “a meta spacetime access gate generation unit configured to acquire…” are limitation(s) that invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. While the written description discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed non-specialized functions (see applicant’s specification as filed; page 30 line 18 – page 31 line 16 and Figure 20; the meta spacetime access gate generation device is a dedicated computer server with corresponding hardware), the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure and algorithm required for specialized functions (see MPEP 2181(II)(B)).
While, the specification discloses the meta spacetime access gate generation device is a dedicated computer server, as discussed above, the specification merely supports structure. As such, the specification lacks any sufficient algorithm for carrying out the respective specialized functions.
Similar reasoning applies to claims 2, 3, 5-7, 9-13, which fail to remedy the deficiencies of independent claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, the non-specialized functionalities of “a meta spacetime access gate connection device comprising a unit configured to: receiving…”; as well as, the specialized functionality of “a meta spacetime access gate connection device comprising a unit configured to: …identify…search…provide…” are limitation(s) that invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description does not disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed non-specialized functions. Further, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure and algorithm required for specialized functions (see MPEP 2181(II)(B)).
At best, Applicant’s specification merely discloses the meta spacetime access gate connection device is a unit (see applicant’s specification as filed; page 14 lines 22-24 and page 20 lines 20-24). However, there is no disclosure of any corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed non-specialized functions, as well as, no disclosure of any corresponding structure and algorithm for performing the claimed specialized functionality.
Similar reasoning applies to claims 15 and 16 which fail to remedy the deficiencies of independent claim 14.
Alternatively, Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; or
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts, as well as the algorithm, for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts , as well as the algorithm. to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, as well as the algorithm, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation, applicant must identify the corresponding structure and algorithm with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 14, as discussed above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed functions of “a meta spacetime access gate connection device comprising a unit configured to: …identify…search…provide…”.
In this instance, the structure corresponding to the 35 U.S.C 112(f) claim limitations that are computer-implement specialized functions must include a general purpose computer or computer component along with the algorithm used for performing the claimed specialized function.
In particular, the disclosure is silent as to the algorithm to perform the functionalities. That is, there is no description of any programming sufficient to perform the functions, and as such, the specification fails to provide a sufficient algorithm corresponding to the structure and the claimed functions.
Therefore, the specification does not provide a disclosure of corresponding structure and algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention including how the inventor intended to program the computer to perform all of the claimed functions.
Similar reasoning applies to claims 15 and 16, which fail to remedy the deficiencies of independent claim 14.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: The acronym “DB” is not defined on first use.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: The acronym “ID” is not defined on first use.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: The limitation “a unit configured to: receiving an address…receiving location…and receiving at least one…” (emphasis added) is recited. However, the term “receiving” is a grammatical error and should be changed to – receive.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-13 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong et al. (U.S. 2018/0014170 A1) in view of Wilson (U.S. 9,465,890 B1), and further in view of Harris et al. (U.S. 2014/0280569 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hong discloses a device for generating a meta spacetime access gate including a location information value required by a user (see Hong; paragraph 0038; Hong discloses via an interface of a upload terminal, i.e. “a device”, a user may request, i.e. “required by a user”, a desired location, i.e. “meta spacetime access gate”, for providing and displaying uploaded content. The user provides location information, such as, within the radius of 200 m, i.e. “a location information value”, of xx-dong, Seoul, Korea; The examiner notes that according to the applicant’s specification, spacetime is defined as just a specific location; see applicant’s specification as filed; page 15 lines 1-2), the device comprising:
a network connection information reception unit configured to receive, from a user, network connection information which allows access to content to be shared which is posted on the Internet or uploaded to a specific website (see Hong; paragraphs 0019, 0020, 0023, 0058 and 0114; Hong discloses the upload terminal provides the specific content to a social network service server through a network. The content is received from the SNS server, i.e. “allows access to content to be shared”. The upload terminal, i.e. “device”, receives, via user input, i.e. “reception unit configured to receive, from a user”, link information, i.e. “network connection information”, that is related to the content may be configured to link information stored on the server on the web, i.e. “posted on the Internet or uploaded to a specific website”. In other words, the link information provides connection information to receive information on the web);
While Hong discloses “a location for sharing the content to be shared” (see Hong; paragraphs 0038 and 0071; Hong discloses providing location information for where content may be displayed, such as Seoul, Korea or a specific building), Hong does not explicitly disclose an address input unit configured to receive an address or postal code of a location for sharing the content to be shared; a meta spacetime access gate generation unit configured to acquire latitude information and longitude information of a location corresponding to the address or postal code received through the address input unit, and generate meta spacetime access gate information for the content to be shared that includes the acquired latitude information and longitude information along with the network connection information.
In analogous art, Wilson discloses an address input unit configured to receive an address or postal code of a location for sharing the content to be shared (see Wilson; column 5 lines 33-43 and column 9 lines 14-24; Wilson discloses content is indexed by a geographical identifier, such as an address, that corresponds to the content, i.e. “content to be shared”. Location data can be one or more of an address, zip code, a latitude/longitude coordinate, etc. The system determines the geographic location from user input, i.e. “…receive an address or postal code of a location” ) (The claim list features in the alternative. While the claim lists a number of optional features only one feature from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art. The Examiner has chosen both the “address” and “postal code” alternatives);
a meta spacetime access gate generation unit configured to acquire latitude information and longitude information of a location corresponding to the address or postal code received through the address input unit (see Wilson; column 5 lines 35-38 and column 9 lines 14-24; Wilson discloses the content is indexed by an address and a latitude/longitude coordinate that corresponds to the content. In particular, the location data for the content can be one or more of an address, a latitude/longitude coordinate, etc. The system determines the address from user input, i.e. “through the address input unit”, and acquires the latitude/longitude coordinates that corresponds to the particular location, e.g. the address), and
generate meta spacetime access gate information for the content to be shared that includes the acquired latitude information and longitude information along with the network connection information (see Wilson; column 5 lines 33-38 and column 15 line 54 – column 6 line 16; Wilson discloses data structures stored corresponding to the content include the geographic identifiers, such as the address and latitude/longitude coordinates. In particular, a maker data structure is created, i.e. “generate meta spacetime access gate information”, that includes a link, i.e. “network connection information”, to a website associated with the content, as well as, positions on maps corresponding to their associated geographic locations, i.e. “latitude information and longitude information”).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Hong and Wilson because they both disclose features of location based content sharing, and as such, are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the feature of using geographic identifiers to index content as taught by Wilson into the system of Hong in order to provide the benefit of efficiency by allowing the location information for where content may be displayed, such as, Seoul, Korea (see Hong; paragraph 0038) to further specify an address and/or latitude and longitude coordinates (see Wilson; column 9 lines 14-19), thus allowing for a more specific location.
While the combination of Hong and Wilson discloses “the content to be shared that further includes location information”, as discussed above, the combination of Hong and Wilson does not explicitly disclose wherein the meta spacetime access gate generation unit generates the meta spacetime access gate information for the content to be shared that further includes location information in a space area specified by a height configured from the location matching the latitude information and longitude information.
In analogous art, Harris wherein the meta spacetime access gate generation unit generates the meta spacetime access gate information for the content to be shared that further includes location information in a space area specified by a height configured from the location matching the latitude information and longitude information (see Harris; paragraphs 0030 and 0045; Harris discloses content can be tagged with a geo-tag that specifies a location, i.e. “location information”, for the content, such as latitude/longitude coordinates, i.e. “location matching the latitude information and longitude information”. Further, the geo-tag of the content and/or the content itself may include address information, if the address specifies a particular floor level, i.e. “area specified by a height configured from the location”, of a building, the address may be converted to an altitude value. The examiner notes that according to the applicant’s specification, height may include one of the number of floors of a building; see applicant’s specification as filed; page 8 lines 22-23).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Hong, Wilson and Harris because they all disclose features of location based content sharing, and as such, are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the feature of geo-tagging content as taught by Harris into the combined system of Hong and Wilson in order to provide the benefit of efficiency by allowing the location information for where content may be displayed, such as, in a specific building in Seoul, Korea (see Hong; paragraph 0071) to further specify a particular floor level of the building (see Harris; paragraph 0045), thus allowing for a more specific location.
Regarding claim 2, Hong, Wilson and Harris disclose all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and further the combination of Hong, Wilson and Harris clearly discloses a latitude and longitude DB configured to store the latitude information and longitude information of the location corresponding to the address or postal code (see Wilson; column 5 lines 33-38 and column 9 lines 14-24; Wilson discloses stored in a database are data structures indexed by the latitude/longitude coordinates that corresponds to the an address and zip code, i.e. “location corresponding to the address or postal code”) (The claim list features in the alternative. While the claim lists a number of optional features only one feature from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art. The Examiner has chosen both the “address” and “postal code” alternatives); and
a meta spacetime information DB configured to store meta spacetime access gate information for each piece of content generated through the meta spacetime access gate generation unit (see Wilson; column 5 lines 44-61; Wilson discloses accessing a database that stores geographic location for a list of different geo-indexed content, i.e. “store meta spacetime access gate information for each piece of content”),
wherein the meta spacetime access gate generation unit acquires the latitude information and longitude information of the location corresponding to the address or postal code received through the address input unit by querying data stored in the latitude and longitude DB (see Wilson; column 5 lines 33-43 and column 9 lines 14-24; Wilson discloses content is indexed by a geographical identifier, such as an address, that corresponds to the content, i.e. “content to be shared”. Location data can be one or more of an address, zip code, a latitude/longitude coordinate, etc. The system determines the geographic location from user input, i.e. “…receive an address or postal code of a location” ), and matches the meta spacetime access gate information with identification information which allows the user or the content to be identified and stores the matched information when storing the meta spacetime access gate information in the meta spacetime information DB (see Wilson; column 5 lines 35-38 and 52-61; Wilson discloses a geographic location via a map, i.e. “meta spacetime access gate information”, associated, i.e. “matching”, with the geographic identifier, such as latitude/longitude coordinate that is stored in the database, i.e. “storing the meta spacetime access gate information in the meta spacetime information DB”).
The prior art used in the rejection of the current claim is combined using the same motivation as was applied in claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Hong, Wilson and Harris disclose all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and further the combination of Hong, Wilson and Harris clearly discloses wherein the address input unit selects the location to be shared on an electronic map in conjunction with the electronic map (see Wilson; column 5 lines 44-64; Wilson discloses user selection of a geographic location on a map, i.e. “selects the location to be shared on an electronic map”) or receives the location to be shared through a map search (The claim list features in the alternative. While the claim lists a number of optional features only one feature from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art. The Examiner has chosen the “selects the location to be shared…” alternative).
The prior art used in the rejection of the current claim is combined using the same motivation as was applied in claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Hong, Wilson and Harris disclose all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and further the combination of Hong, Wilson and Harris clearly discloses wherein the network connection information is an address of a webpage or server where the content to be shared is posted or uploaded (see Hong; paragraph 0114; Hong discloses link information, i.e. “network connection information”, that is related to the content may be configured to link information stored on the server on the web, i.e. “where the content to be shared is posted”), and the address of the webpage or server is a URL address (see Hong; paragraph 0114; Hong discloses the server on the web. Therefore, a URL address would be used in order to access the server through the web), an IP address, or a source code including one of the URL address and the IP address (The claim list features in the alternative. While the claim lists a number of optional features only one feature from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art. The Examiner has chosen the “URL address” alternative).
Regarding claim 5, Hong, Wilson and Harris disclose all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and further the combination of Hong, Wilson and Harris clearly discloses wherein the meta spacetime access gate generation unit generates meta spacetime access gate information for the content to be shared that further includes address information of a location matching the latitude information and longitude information (see Wilson; column 5 lines 35-38 and 52-61; Wilson discloses a geographic location via a map, i.e. “meta spacetime access gate information”, associated, i.e. “matching”, with the geographic identifier, such as latitude/longitude coordinate).
The prior art used in the rejection of the current claim is combined using the same motivation as was applied in claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Hong, Wilson and Harris disclose all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and further the combination of Hong, Wilson and Harris clearly discloses wherein the meta spacetime access gate generation unit generates the meta spacetime access gate information for the content to be shared that further includes a postal code of the location matching the latitude information and longitude information (see Wilson; column 5 lines 35-38 and 52-61 and column 9 lines 14-19; Wilson discloses a geographic location via a map, i.e. “meta spacetime access gate information”, associated, i.e. “matching”, with the geographic identifier, such as latitude/longitude coordinate and zip code, i.e. “postal code”).
The prior art used in the rejection of the current claim is combined using the same motivation as was applied in claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Hong, Wilson and Harris disclose all the limitations of claim 5, as discussed above, and further the combination of Hong, Wilson and Harris clearly discloses wherein the meta spacetime access gate generation unit generates the meta spacetime access gate information for the content to be shared that further includes a postal code of the location matching the latitude information and longitude information (see Wilson; column 5 lines 35-38 and 52-61 and column 9 lines 14-19; Wilson discloses a geographic location via a map, i.e. “meta spacetime access gate information”, associated, i.e. “matching”, with the geographic identifier, such as latitude/longitude coordinate and zip code, i.e. “postal code”).
The prior art used in the rejection of the current claim is combined using the same motivation as was applied in claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, Hong, Wilson and Harris disclose all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and further the combination of Hong, Wilson and Harris clearly discloses wherein the space specified by the height includes one of the number of floors of an arbitrary building (see Harris; paragraphs 0030 and 0045; Harris discloses content can be tagged with a geo-tag that specifies a location for the content, such as latitude/longitude coordinates. Further, the geo-tag of the content and/or the content itself may include address information, if the address specifies a particular floor level of a building, i.e. “one of the number of floors of an arbitrary building”, the address may be converted to an altitude value), a height from sea level, and a height from the ground, and is specified by specifying a single floor number or height or by designating a range of floors (from a certain floor to another floor) or a range of heights (from a certain height to another height) (The claim list features in the alternative. While the claim lists a number of optional features only one feature from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art. The Examiner has chosen the “one of the number of floors of an arbitrary building” alternative).
The prior art used in the rejection of the current claim is combined using the same motivation as was applied in claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, Hong, Wilson and Harris disclose all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and further the combination of Hong, Wilson and Harris clearly discloses wherein the meta spacetime access gate generation unit generates meta spacetime access gate information on the content to be shared that further includes time information including a time point or period for disclosing the content to be shared at the location matching the latitude information and longitude information (see Hong; paragraphs 0026, 0045 and 0047-0049; Hong discloses geo-location coordinates known from GPS, i.e. “latitude and longitude information” and search and access limits may be for a specific location that has temporal limits, i.e. “time information”, such as, content displayed at the location for a predetermined time).
Regarding claim 10, Hong, Wilson and Harris disclose all the limitations of claim 9, as discussed above, and further the combination of Hong, Wilson and Harris clearly discloses wherein the meta spacetime access gate generation unit generates, when multiple pieces of time information are included in the content to be shared, multiple pieces of different meta spacetime access gate information to correspond to the multiple pieces of time information and disclose the content to be shared at different time points or different periods included in the time information (see Hong; paragraphs 0045, 0047-0049 and 0058; Hong discloses search and access limits may be for a specific location that has temporal limits, i.e. “time information”, such as, content displayed at the location for a predetermined time or time interval, i.e. “different time points or different periods”).
Regarding claim 11, Hong, Wilson and Harris disclose all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and further the combination of Hong, Wilson and Harris clearly discloses a distance radius configuration unit configured to provide an interface (UI) manipulation screen for configuring a spatial arca defined by a distance from the location matching the latitude information and longitude information to a radius (see Hong; paragraphs 0026, 0038, 0039 and 0047; Hong discloses geo-location coordinates known from GPS, i.e. “latitude and longitude information”, and radius information. In particular, a specific area set for a radius, i.e. “a spatial arca defined by a distance”),
wherein the meta spacetime access gate generation unit additionally includes radius distance information configured by the distance radius configuration unit when generating the meta spacetime access gate information on the content to be shared (see Hong; paragraphs 0026, 0038, 0039 and 0047; Hong discloses radius distance, such as, only within the radius of 200 m of xx-dong, Seoul, Korea).
Regarding claim 12, Hong, Wilson and Harris disclose all the limitations of claim 11, as discussed above, and further the combination of Hong, Wilson and Harris clearly discloses wherein the meta spacetime access gate generation unit groups latitude information and longitude information of a spatial location defined by the radius distance configured by the distance radius configuration unit with respect to the location corresponding to the latitude information and longitude information (see Hong; paragraphs 0026, 0038, 0039 and 0047; Hong geo-location coordinates known from GPS, i.e. “latitude and longitude information”, and radius distance, such as, only within the radius of 200 m of xx-dong, Seoul, Korea), assigns a set ID to the grouped latitude information and longitude information, and generates the meta spacetime access gate information to include only the set ID (see Wilson; column 5 lines 33-38; Wilson discloses a plurality of data structures and indexed by a geographical identifier, i.e. “set ID”, for the latitude/longitude coordinates).
The prior art used in the rejection of the current claim is combined using the same motivation as was applied in claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, Hong, Wilson and Harris disclose all the limitations of claim 11, as discussed above, and further the combination of Hong, Wilson and Harris clearly discloses wherein the meta spacetime access gate generation unit directly includes latitude and longitude information at a location that is the center of the radius as representative information in the meta spacetime access gate information (see Hong; paragraphs 0026, 0038, 0039 and 0047; Hong geo-location coordinates known from GPS, i.e. “latitude and longitude information”, and radius distance, such as, only within the radius of 200 m of xx-dong, Seoul, Korea), and assigns a set ID to the latitude and longitude information at the spatial location defined by the radius distance to generate the meta spacetime access gate information (see Hong; paragraphs 0026, 0038, 0039 and 0047; Hong discloses the radius distance; and further, see Wilson; column 5 lines 33-38; Wilson discloses a plurality of data structures and indexed by a geographical identifier, i.e. “set ID”, for the latitude/longitude coordinates).
The prior art used in the rejection of the current claim is combined using the same motivation as was applied in claim 1.
Regarding claim 17, the limitations are substantially similar to the limitations recited in claim 1, only distinguishable by its/their statutory category (e.g. process, non-transitory CRSM, device, computer program product). Therefore, the same rationale used to reject claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 17.
Regarding claim 18, Hong, Wilson and Harris disclose all the limitations of claim 17, as discussed above, and further the combination of Hong, Wilson and Harris clearly discloses wherein the generating of the meta spacetime access gate information includes generating meta spacetime access gate information for the content to be shared that further includes one or more of location information in a spatial area defined by a distance from a location matching the latitude information and longitude information to a radius (see Hong; paragraphs 0026, 0038, 0039 and 0047; Hong discloses geo-location coordinates known from GPS, i.e. “latitude and longitude information”, and radius information. In particular, a specific area set for a radius, i.e. “a spatial arca defined by a distance”), or time information including a time point or period for disclosing the content to be shared at the location matching the latitude information and longitude information (see Hong; paragraphs 0026, 0045 and 0047-0049; Hong discloses geo-location coordinates known from GPS, i.e. “latitude and longitude information” and search and access limits may be for a specific location that has temporal limits, i.e. “time information”, such as, content displayed at the location for a predetermined time) (The claim list features in the alternative. While the claim lists a number of optional features only one feature from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art. The Examiner has chosen both alternatives).
Regarding claim 19, Hong, Wilson and Harris disclose all the limitations of claim 17, as discussed above, and further the combination of Hong, Wilson and Harris clearly discloses wherein, in the generating of the meta spacetime access gate information, at least one of an address and postal code of the location corresponding to the latitude information and longitude information is further included when the meta spacetime access gate information for the content is generated (see Wilson; column 5 lines 35-38 and 52-61 and column 9 lines 14-19; Wilson discloses a geographic location via a map, i.e. “meta spacetime access gate information”, associated with the geographic identifier, such as latitude/longitude coordinate and zip code, i.e. “postal code”) (The claim list features in the alternative. While the claim lists a number of optional features only one feature from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art. The Examiner has chosen both “address” and “postal code” alternatives).
The prior art used in the rejection of the current claim is combined using the same motivation as was applied in claim 17.
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong et al. (U.S. 2018/0014170 A1) in view of Wilson (U.S. 9,465,890 B1).
Regarding claim 14, Hong discloses a meta spacetime access gate connection device comprising a unit configured to:
receiving an address or postal code as search information for content to be shared from a user terminal (see Hong; paragraphs 0038, 0045, 0046 and 0123; Hong discloses location information for content, such as, Seoul, Korea. When a search/access request is transmitted, a condition may be set, such as, a street of a destination. A user, i.e. “user terminal”, may input a specific search condition for content. In other words, a search request for content including a street in Seoul, Korea, i.e. “receiving an address…as search information for content”), receiving location information corresponding to the address or postal code (see Hong; paragraphs 0038, 0045-0047 and 0131; Hong discloses specific location in Seoul, Korea, i.e. “location information corresponding to the address”. And a receiver may request to perform filtering of the content that has a location close to the receiver), and receiving at least one of the radius distance (see Hong; paragraphs 0038, 0045-0047, 0123 and 0134; Hong discloses a condition for a radius. In particular, a radius that the receiver can reach for the content, such as a specific location in Seoul. The user may input the specific search condition), height information, and time information corresponding to the address or postal code (The claim list features in the alternative. While the claim lists a number of optional features only one feature from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art. The Examiner has chosen the “address” and “radius” alternatives).
While Hong discloses “search information for content to be shared”, as discussed above, Hong does not explicitly disclose identify latitude information and longitude information of a location corresponding to the received search information, and search for meta spacetime access gate information matching the identified latitude and longitude information; and provide access to network access information included in the retrieved meta spacetime access gate information through an Internet network.
In analogous art, Wilson discloses identify latitude information and longitude information of a location corresponding to the received search information (see Wilson; column 5 lines 35-38, 44-55 and column 9 lines 14-24; Wilson discloses content is indexed by a geographical identifier, such as, a latitude/longitude coordinate. Upon selection of a marker icon, i.e. “received search information”, the geographical identifiers are identified, i.e. “identify latitude information and longitude information”), and search for meta spacetime access gate information matching the identified latitude and longitude information (see Wilson; column 5 lines 35-38 and 52-61; Wilson discloses a geographic location via a map, i.e. “meta spacetime access gate information”, associated, i.e. “matching”, with the geographic identifier, such as latitude/longitude coordinate); and
provide access to network access information included in the retrieved meta spacetime access gate information through an Internet network (see Wilson; column 5 lines 35-38 and 44-64; Wilson discloses a user can access a database, i.e. “network access information”, through a website, “through an Internet network”, from the retrieved geographic location via a map).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Hong and Wilson because they both disclose features of location based content sharing, and as such, are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the feature of using geographic identifiers to index content as taught by Wilson into the system of Hong in order to provide the benefit of efficiency by allowing the location information for where content may be displayed, such as, Seoul, Korea (see Hong; paragraph 0038) to further specify an address and/or latitude and longitude coordinates (see Wilson; column 9 lines 14-19), thus allowing for a more specific location.
Regarding claim 15, Hong and Wilson disclose all the limitations of claim 14, as discussed above, and further the combination of Hong and Wilson clearly discloses wherein, when a search for location information including the radius distance is requested together with the location information to be searched for (see Hong; paragraphs 0038, 0045-0047, 0123 and 0134; Hong discloses a condition for a radius. In particular, a radius that the receiver can reach for the content, such as a specific location in Seoul. The user may input the specific search condition), the unit identifies the latitude and longitude information of the location for which the search is requested (see Wilson; column 5 lines 35-38, 44-55 and column 9 lines 14-24; Wilson discloses content is indexed by a geographical identifier, such as, a latitude/longitude coordinate. Upon selection of a marker icon, i.e. “received search information”, the geographical identifiers are identified, i.e. “identifies the latitude and longitude information”), as well as latitude and longitude information including the radius distance (see Hong; paragraphs 0026, 0038 and 0047; Hong discloses geo-location coordinates known from GPS, i.e. “latitude and longitude information”, and radius information), and searches for the meta spacetime access gate information including multiple pieces of latitude information and longitude information identified corresponding to the above location information received (see Wilson; column 5 lines 35-38, 44-55 and column 9 lines 14-24; Wilson discloses content is indexed by a geographical identifier, such as, a latitude/longitude coordinate. Upon selection of a marker icon, i.e. “received search information”, the geographical identifiers are identified, i.e. “multiple pieces of latitude information and longitude information identified”).
The prior art used in the rejection of the current claim is combined using the same motivation as was applied in claim 14.
Regarding claim 16, Hong and Wilson disclose all the limitations of claim 14, as discussed above, and further the combination of Hong and Wilson clearly discloses wherein, when a search for location information including at least one of time information and height information is requested together with the location information to be searched for (see Hong; paragraphs 0045 and 0047-0049; Hong discloses search and access limits may be for a specific location that has temporal limits, i.e. “time information”, such as, content displayed at the location for a predetermined time), the unit identifies the latitude and longitude information of the location for which the search is requested (see Wilson; column 5 lines 35-38, 44-55 and column 9 lines 14-24; Wilson discloses content is indexed by a geographical identifier, such as, a latitude/longitude coordinate. Upon selection of a marker icon, i.e. “received search information”, the geographical identifiers are identified, i.e. “identifies the latitude and longitude information”), and then searches for meta spacetime access gate information including at least one of latitude information, longitude information (see Wilson; column 5 lines 35-38, 44-55 and column 9 lines 14-24; Wilson discloses content is indexed by a geographical identifier, such as, a latitude/longitude coordinate. Upon selection of a marker icon, the geographical identifiers are identified, i.e. “searches for meta spacetime access gate information including at least one of latitude information, longitude information”), time information, or height information identified corresponding to the above location information received (The claim list features in the alternative. While the claim lists a number of optional features only one feature from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art. The Examiner has chosen the “time information”, “latitude” and “longitude” alternatives).
The prior art used in the rejection of the current claim is combined using the same motivation as was applied in claim 14.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Jung (U.S. 2020/0314046 A1) discloses when one user points to a virtual space, using a camera, content is displayed that was uploaded by another user to the space.
Zheng et al. (U.S. 2009/0216435 A1) discloses tagging multimedia content with geographic routes using GPS. In particular, displaying the multimedia content at corresponding locations along a map route.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM A COONEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5653. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-5:00pm (every other Fri off).
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, Umar Cheema can be reached at 571-270-3037. 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.
/A.A.C/Examiner, Art Unit 2458 07/09/26
/UMAR CHEEMA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2458
Prosecution Insights