DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 06/05/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. Patent No.(s) 12,260,728 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 8-14, 17-18 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon et al. (“Kwon”, US 20070243869 A1) in view of Williamson et al. (“Williamson”, US 20100325194 A1, IDS) and Beydler et al. (“Beydler”, US 20090117921 A1). 1) Regarding claims 1 and 20, Kwon discloses an electronic device of a second user, comprising: As per the limitation a display device. Kwon discloses, in ¶¶21-25 with reference to Fig. 1, that the mobile device M connects to a mobile communication network to enable a guardian of a ward to register for location tracking service for the ward based on guardian specified safety zones established via displayed graphical information presented to the mobile device, hence mobile device comprises a display device. As per the limitation a communication circuit configured to communicate with a computing device. Kwon: Fig. 1 with regards the mobile terminal communicating with the service-providing server via the base station 10, hence a communication circuit is inherent to the mobile terminal. Furthermore, Williamson discloses, in Fig. 12, an illustration of the concept of using a wireless communication subsystem 1224 to facilitate communication between devices. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate he concept of using a wireless communication subsystem 1224 to facilitate communication between devices, with the motivation to enhance the communication features of the system. As per the limitation, one or more processors. Kwon illustrates functional step being performed by an location service registering device, see Figs. 2-4, which suggest the use of a processing device to enable desired functional operation to be implemented. Williamson further discloses, in Fig. 12, the concept of using processor(s) 1204 and memory 1250 to facilitate desired operations of a device, see ¶¶167-172. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of using processor(s) and memory to facilitate desired operations of a device, with the motivation to enhance the processing features of the system. As per the limitation, memory storing instructions thereon, the instructions when executed by the one or more processors (Williamson: ¶¶167-168) cause the one or more processors to: receive, via an input device, identification of a first device of a first user from the second user responsible for monitoring and protecting the first user. Kwon discloses, in ¶24, that the guardian’s registered service includes collecting and storing information provided by the guardian to establish a profile of the guardian with specified safety zones and registered ward information. ¶¶28-30, 33, 41-45 with reference to Figs. 2-4, discloses that the guardian provides the mobile identification number (MIN) of the ward during the registering process to enable system to receive location information of the ward. While Kwon does not explicitly disclose the details of using an input device. However, it is suggestive that an input device is used during the registration process. Kwon further discloses, in claim 11 that the ward’s MIN is inputted by the subscriber. Williamson discloses, in ¶¶46-53, 72-78, 167-172 with reference to Figs. 1-4A; 12: GUI instruction 1256, the concept configuring a mobile device with graphical user interface instructions stored in memory and processed by processor(s) to enable use of an user-interface of a mobile device to input registration information for location tracking services. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept configuring a mobile device with graphical user interface instructions stored in memory and processed by processor(s) to enable use of an user-interface of a mobile device to input registration information for location tracking services, with the motivation to enhance the user interaction features of the mobile terminal. As per the limitation send the identification of the first device to the computing device via the communication circuit to cause the computing device to store the identification in association with the second user (Kwon: ¶¶28-30, 33, 41-45; claim 11). As per the limitation receive, via the communication circuit, a location of the first device of the first user and a photo of the first user registered in association with the first user by the second user. Williamson discloses, in ¶¶77-84 with reference to Fig. 3A, the concept of receiving graphically presented location information via an graphical interface of a registered mobile device. Beydler discloses, in ¶40 with reference to Fig. 17, the concept of presenting and providing active tracking graphical indication of a person being monitored by a location service. Beydler further discloses, in ¶73 with reference to Figs. 6-10, the concept of registering a photo image (element 134) when registering for location tracking services for a specific device of a person to be tracked, and further discloses, in ¶92 with reference to Fig. 22, that a user request input is received to request location of any of the group 193, see Fig. 15 ( take notice of the illustration of Little Dave being a possible selection). Fig. 17 illustrates that detailed coordinates information provided along with an icon image of the photo of Little Dave displayed on the map interface, see ¶78. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of registering, presenting and providing active tracking graphical indication of a person being monitored by a location service, with the motivation to enhance the tracking and monitoring features of the system. As per the limitation responsive to receiving the first user input, display the location of the first device of the first user on the display device (Beydler: ¶92 with reference to Fig. 22, that a user request input is received to request location of any of the group 193, see Fig. 15 (take notice of the illustration of Little Dave being a possible selection). Fig. 17 illustrates that detailed coordinates information provided along with an icon image of the photo of Little Dave displayed on the map interface, see ¶78). 2) Regarding claims 2, further comprising:
generating a map on which the location of the first device is displayed (Williamson: Fig. 3A; Beydler: Fig. 17). 3) Regarding claim 4, further comprising:
displaying a user interface listing associated users for selection by the second user, the
associated users including the first user (Beydler: Fig. 15 with regard to four family members including little Dave and Spaz, as potential monitored entities). 4) Regarding claim 8, further comprising: receiving a notification from the computing device responsive to the location of the first user satisfying a condition with respect to a predetermined geographical location
or zone (Kwon: abstract; ¶¶10, 24-25, 28-29; Beydler: ¶77); and displaying notification information on a user interface based on the notification responsive to receiving the notification (Kwon: abstract; ¶¶10, 24-25, 28-29, 60-64; Beydler: ¶77). 5) Regarding claim 9, further comprising: displaying a user interface identifying the predetermined geographical location or zone (Beydler: Figs. 13, 15-19, 27-28); receiving a second user input to update the predetermined geographical location or zone (Beydler: Fig. 13); and responsive to receiving the second user input, sending an update to the computing device to update the predetermined location or zone (Beydler: Fig. 13). 6) Regarding claim 10, further comprising: responsive to receiving a second user input, displaying detailed information on the predetermine geographical location or zone (Beydler: Figs. 13, 15-19, 27-28). 7) Regarding claim 11, Kwon, Williamson and Beydler with the same motivation to combine as presented in the rejection of claims 1 and 20 teach a method performed by a computing device,, comprising: receiving from a second device of a second user responsible for monitoring and protecting a first user, identification of a first device of the first user and a photo of the first user (see analysis of the rejection of claims 1 and 20); storing the received identification and photo in association with the second user (see analysis of the rejection of claims 1 and 20; Kwon: ¶10; 24, 29; Beydler: ¶¶64, 84); receiving from the first device a location of the first device of the first user (see analysis of the rejection of claims 1 and 20). As per the limitation responsive to receiving a request to locate the first user from the second device of the second user, sending the location of the first user to the second device to cause the second device to display the location of the first device and photo on a map. Beydler discloses, in ¶40 with reference to Fig. 17, the concept of presenting and providing active tracking graphical indication of a person being monitored by a location service. Beydler further discloses, in ¶73 with reference to Figs. 6-10, the concept of registering a photo image (element 134) when registering for location tracking services for a specific device of a person to be tracked, and further discloses, in ¶92 with reference to Fig. 22, that a user request input is received to request location of any of the group 193, see Fig. 15 ( take notice of the illustration of Little Dave being a possible selection). Fig. 17 illustrates that detailed coordinates information provided along with an icon image of the photo of Little Dave displayed on the map interface, see ¶78. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of registering, presenting and providing active tracking graphical indication of a person being monitored by a location service, with the motivation to enhance the tracking and monitoring features of the system. As per the limitation, based on a determination that the location corresponds to a preset location satisfying a condition set by the second user automatically sending a notification to the second device responsive to the location (Kwon: abstract; ¶¶10, 24-25, 28-29, 57-58; Fig. 7; Beydler: ¶77). 8) Regarding claim 12, further comprising: storing identification of a third device of a third user for whom the second user is
responsible to monitor and protect (Beydler: Fig. 15: element 193 with regard to either the dad or dog (Spaz); receiving a location of the third device of the third user responsive to the second user selecting the third user on a graphical user interface displayed on the second
device (Beydler: Fig. 15: element 193); and responsive to receiving a request to locate the third user, sending the location of the third user to the second device to cause the second device to display the location of the
third device on the map (Beydler: Fig. 15). 9) Regarding claim 13, further comprising: receiving a state of the first user from the first device (Kwon: ¶58-64 with regard to the tracked location being detected outside the safety zone); and sending the state of the first user to the second device to cause the second device to display the state of the first user on a graphical user interface (Kwon: ¶58-64). 10) Regarding claim 14, further comprising:
receiving information on the first user from the second device of the second user; and storing information in association with the second user (Kwon discloses, in ¶24, that the guardian’s registered service includes collecting and storing information provided by the guardian to establish a profile of the guardian with specified safety zones and registered ward information. ¶¶28-30, 33, 41-45 with reference to Figs. 2-4, discloses that the guardian provides the mobile identification number (MIN) of the ward during the registering process to enable system to receive location information of the ward. While Kwon does not explicitly disclose the details of using an input device. However, it is suggestive that an input device is used during the registration process. Kwon further discloses, in claim 11 that the ward’s MIN is inputted by the subscriber). 11) Regarding claim 17, further comprising: receiving information on a third user from a second user, the third user responsible for monitoring and protecting the first user in conjunction with the second user (Beydler: Figs. 12 & 15 with regard to the registration of the Dad and the assignment of the devices (element 172 of Fig. 12 that can be assigned to receive the location information of the device assigned thereto); and responsive to receiving a request to locate the first user from a third device of the third user, sending the location of the first user to the third device to cause the third device to display the location of the first device on a map (Beydler: Figs. 15-17 & 24-28). 12) Regarding claim 18, further comprising: sending time information corresponding to the location of the first device to the second device to cause the second device to display the time information with the location (Beydler: Fig. 17).
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon in view of Williamson and Beydler, and in further view of Cox et al. (“Cox”, US 20040207648 A1, IDS). 1) Regarding claim 3, wherein a graphical user element representing the first user is displayed at a center of the map, responsive to receiving a second user input. Cox discloses, in ¶43, the concept of centering displayed content based on a user centering request. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of centering displayed content based on a user centering request, with the motivation to enhance the displayed content control features of the system.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon in view of Williamson and Beydler, and in further view of Miller er al. (“Miller”, US 20120278479 A1). 1) Regarding claim 6, further comprising: a second user input selecting a travel route of the first user. Beydler discloses, in ¶105 with reference to Fig. 28, the concept of displaying travelled coordinates of a monitored entity. Williams discloses, in ¶84; Fig. 3A: user interface element 342, the concept of selecting route information travelled by an entity being monitored by a location service. Miller discloses, in ¶¶41, 62, the concept of providing specific route information of a route travelled by an asset to be displayed. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of selecting route information travelled by an entity being monitored by a location service and the concept of providing specific route information of a route travelled by an asset to be displayed, with the motivation to enhance location monitoring and tracking features of the system. As per the limitation displaying the travel route of the first user on a map responsive to receiving the second user input (Beydler: ¶¶105-107; Fig. 28; Miller ¶41, 62).
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon in view of Williamson and Beydler, and in further view of Klassen et al. (“Klassen”, US 20090143079 A1, IDS). 1) Regarding claim 7, further comprising: second user input selecting historical location data of the first user; and displaying the historical location data of the first user in a time sequence responsive to receiving the second user input. Beydler discloses, in ¶101, the concept of using mapping look-up historical information concerning the location of a tracked entity. Klassen discloses, in ¶24, the concept of obtaining time and path data of a tracked mobile device and providing displayed past and present data according the a time sequence, see Fig. 7. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of obtaining time and path data of a tracked mobile device and providing displayed past and present data according the a time sequence, with the motivation to enhance the location and tracking features of the system.
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon in view of Williamson and Beydler, and in further view of Ferguson et al. (“Ferguson”, US 20110111728 A1). 1) Regarding claim 15, wherein the information on the first user comprises atleast one of a photo, a name, gender, age, height, weight, school, or a feature of the first user. Ferguson discloses, in ¶40, the concept of providing height, age, gender, picture, weight etc. information of a user experiencing an emergency condition to assist a responding entity with important identifiable information. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of providing height, age, gender, picture, weight etc. information of a user experiencing an emergency condition to assist a responding entity with important identifiable information, with the motivation to enhance the user/asset monitoring and distress response features of the system.
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon in view of Williamson and Beydler, and in further view of Sullivan (US 20100267361 A1). 1) Regarding claim 16, further comprising: sending the location of the first user and at least a subset of the stored information on the first user to a third party, responsive to detecting an emergency associated with the first user. Sullivan discloses, in ¶31, the concept of notifying an enforcement entity based on alert related to tracked location of an entity. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of notifying an enforcement entity based on alert related to tracked location of an entity, with the motivation to enhance the location monitoring and reporting features of the system.
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon in view of Williamson and Beydler, and in further view of Miller and Klassen. 1) Regarding claim 19, Kwon, Williamson and Beydler with the same motivation to combine the teachings by Miller in the rejection of claims 6 and the teachings by Klassen the rejection of claim 7 further comprising: including the received location in historical location data of the first user (see rejection of claim 7); generating a travel route of the first user from the historical location data (see rejection of claim 7); and sending the travel route to the second device to cause the second device to display the travel route of the first user (see rejection of claim 6).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Arguments: Applicant argues that the combination of Kwon, Williamson and Beydler does not disclose or suggest the added limitation of “receiving, from the computing device, a location of the first device of the first user and phot of the user registered in association with the first user by the second user; receiving a first user input selecting the first user via the input device; and responsive to receiving the first user input, displaying the location of the first device of the first user and the photo of the first user”. However, Beydler discloses, in ¶73 with reference to Figs. 6-10, the concept of registering a photo image (element 134) when registering for location tracking services for a specific device of a person to be tracked, and further discloses, in ¶92 with reference to Fig. 22, that a user request input is received to request location of any of the group 193, see Fig. 15 ( take notice of the illustration of Little Dave being a possible selection). Fig. 17 illustrates that detailed coordinates information provided along with an icon image of the photo of Little Dave displayed on the map interface, see ¶78. Therefore, the argument is not persuasive and the Non-Final rejection is maintained. For full detail see action above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHICO A FOXX whose telephone number is (571)272-5530. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 6:00 M-F.
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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at 571-272-3114. 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.
CHICO A. FOXX
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2685
/CHICO A FOXX/Examiner, Art Unit 2685
Prosecution Insights