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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are cancelled. Claims 21-40 filed January 24, 2025 are pending and are hereby examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
4. Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
5. Step 1 Statutory Category: Claims 21-27 are directed to a system, claims 28-34 are directed to non-transitory computer-readable media, and claims 35-40 are directed to a method, all of which are statutory classes of invention.
6. Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited: Nevertheless, independent claims 21, 28, and 35 recite an abstract idea of geolocation compliance of a mobile workforce.
The independent claims 21, 28, and 35 recite the following limitations which fall under commercial or legal interactions:
…
…
identify a current period in which a… is operating;
determine that the… has entered a new region based on a first location of the…;
identify a first set of rules associated with the current period and a second set of
rules associated with the new region;
compare the first set of rules with each rule from the second set of rules;
identify one or more new rules that are included in the second set of rules and are
not included in the first set of rules;
monitor compliance of the one or more new rules and the first set of rules based
upon information received from at least one of the… or an operator of the…;
and responsive to receipt of the information, transmit a notification to the operator, the
notification comprising one of: an indication that the operator is operating out of compliance
with the one or more new rules or a recommended action for the operator to take to comply with the one or more new rules.
7. According to the MPEP, "Commercial interactions" or "legal interactions" include agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. Clearly, geolocation compliance of a mobile workforce falls under sales activities, therefore commercial or legal interactions. If the claim limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as a commercial or legal interaction, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
8. Step 2A – Prong 2: Practical Application: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim as a whole merely recites geolocation compliance of a mobile workforce with generally recited computer elements such as a memory, processor, and mobile unit, which in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, and are merely invoked as tools for geolocation compliance of a mobile workforce. Accordingly, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computing environment is not a practical application of the abstract idea, and does not take the claim out of the Commercial or Legal Interactions subgrouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
9. Step 2B – Inventive Concept: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a processor, memory, and mobile unit to perform these steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered individually and as an ordered combination as there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. The claims are not patent eligible.
10. Regarding dependent claims 23, 30, and 37, these claims merely narrow the abstract idea of geolocation compliance of a mobile workforce, and these claims neither integrate into a practical application nor contain additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
11. Regarding dependent claims 24-29, 31-36, and 38-40, although there is a generally recited processor and mobile unit, these claims merely narrow the abstract idea of geolocation compliance of a mobile workforce, and these claims neither integrate into a practical application nor contain additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
12. Therefore, the limitations of the claims, when viewed individually and in ordered combination, are directed to ineligible subject matter.
Double Patenting
13. 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).
14. 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).
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of provisional nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 12-31 of U.S. Patent 11,282,090 and claims 34-63 of U.S. Patent 10,339,536 and claims 16-33 of U.S. Patent 10,832,256 and claims 63-82 of U.S. Patent 11,615,427. In fact, the ‘090, ‘536, ‘256, and ‘427 patents are more detailed and more specific and encompasses almost all of the elements of the broader, current ‘909 application as seen below.
18. This is an obviousness nonstatutory double patenting rejection because although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed limitations from the present application and U.S. Patents 11,282,090, 10,339,536, 10,832,256, and 11,615,427 above are significantly similar and the claimed features seem to be identical with various obvious alternate methods. The omission of an element with a corresponding loss of function is an obvious expedient. See In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 and Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375. For these reasons, claims 21-40 of the instant application are not identical to claims 12-31 of U.S. Patent 11,282,090 and claims 34-63 of U.S. Patent 10,339,536 and claims 16-33 of U.S. Patent 10,832,256 and claims 63-82 of U.S. Patent 11,615,427, but they are not patentably distinct.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
19. 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.
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
23. Claims 21-23, 25-30, 32-37, and 39-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonhomme (US 2016/0003627) in view of Baldassano (US 2015/0242861).
24. Re Claims 21, 28, 35: Bonhomme discloses comprising:
a memory having computer-readable instructions stored thereon (see [0012] memory);
and a processor that executes the computer-readable instructions to (see [0012] processor):
identify a current period in which a mobile unit is operating (see [0016] “A system for automatic geofence determination is disclosed. A geofence comprises a software boundary indicating a change of location-specific information. Geofences delineate regions with distinct speed limits or other legal rules, safety rules, insurance rules, fleet-specific rules, or any other appropriate rules. For example, a geofence is used to delineate a truck depot that a commercial truck returns to at the end of each day. The truck depot geofence can be used to indicate a change of legal rules, e.g., seat belts are not required to be worn in the truck depot, the speed limit within the truck depot is 5 MPH regardless of the legal limit on the nearest street, the truck is not allowed to be outside the truck depot after 9 PM or before 7 AM, etc. A geofence typically can also be used to designate a legal vehicle perimeter (e.g., if the vehicle leaves the legal vehicle perimeter at any time an anomalous event is generated)”);
determine that the mobile unit has entered a new region based on a first location of the mobile unit (see [0016] “A system for automatic geofence determination is disclosed. A geofence comprises a software boundary indicating a change of location-specific information. Geofences delineate regions with distinct speed limits or other legal rules, safety rules, insurance rules, fleet-specific rules, or any other appropriate rules. For example, a geofence is used to delineate a truck depot that a commercial truck returns to at the end of each day. The truck depot geofence can be used to indicate a change of legal rules, e.g., seat belts are not required to be worn in the truck depot, the speed limit within the truck depot is 5 MPH regardless of the legal limit on the nearest street, the truck is not allowed to be outside the truck depot after 9 PM or before 7 AM, etc. A geofence typically can also be used to designate a legal vehicle perimeter (e.g., if the vehicle leaves the legal vehicle perimeter at any time an anomalous event is generated)”);
identify a first set of rules associated with the current period and a second set of
rules associated with the new region (see [0016] geofences delineate regions with distinct speed limits or legal rules, safety rules, insurance rule, or other appropriate rules);
compare the first set of rules with each rule from the second set of rules (see [0016] “A system for automatic geofence determination is disclosed. A geofence comprises a software boundary indicating a change of location-specific information. Geofences delineate regions with distinct speed limits or other legal rules, safety rules, insurance rules, fleet-specific rules, or any other appropriate rules. For example, a geofence is used to delineate a truck depot that a commercial truck returns to at the end of each day. The truck depot geofence can be used to indicate a change of legal rules, e.g., seat belts are not required to be worn in the truck depot, the speed limit within the truck depot is 5 MPH regardless of the legal limit on the nearest street, the truck is not allowed to be outside the truck depot after 9 PM or before 7 AM, etc. A geofence typically can also be used to designate a legal vehicle perimeter (e.g., if the vehicle leaves the legal vehicle perimeter at any time an anomalous event is generated)”);
identify one or more new rules that are included in the second set of rules and are
not included in the first set of rules (see [0016] geofences delineate regions with distinct speed limits or legal rules, safety rules, insurance rule, or other appropriate rules).
However, Bonhomme fails to explicitly disclose the following. Meanwhile, Baldassano teaches:
monitor compliance of the one or more new rules and the first set of rules based
upon information received from at least one of the mobile unit or an operator of the mobile unit (see [0029], Fig. 2 mobile device or any communication device used to assist user with compliance with set of regulations);
and responsive to receipt of the information, transmit a notification to the operator, the
notification comprising one of: an indication that the operator is operating out of compliance
with the one or more new rules or a recommended action for the operator to take to comply with the one or more new rules (see [0052] system operator 108 may be notified an assessment of compliance of user).
From the teaching of Baldassano, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Bonhomme’s automatic geofence determination with Baldassano’s teaching of compliance in order for “… assisting a user with compliance with a set of regulations… (see Baldassano Abstract).”
25. Re Claims 22, 29, 36: Bonhomme discloses wherein the current period is associated with a second location in which the mobile unit is operating prior to entering the new region (see [0022], Fig. 5 group of stopping locations).
26. Re Claims 23, 30, 37: Bonhomme discloses wherein each of the one or more new rules and the first set of rules is associated with a start time and an end time within which the each of the one or more new rules and the first set of rules is to be complied with (see [0023] start and stop locations, start trip and end trip).
27. Re Claims 25, 32, 39: Bonhomme discloses wherein to determine that the mobile unit has entered the new region, the processor executes computer-readable instructions to:
determine based on the first location and the second location that the mobile unit has
traveled a predetermined distance;
and determine the defined region upon the mobile unit having traveled the predetermined distance (see [0017] distance between two nodes above a threshold, [0025] within a limit distance of any other node).
28. Re Claims 26, 33: However, Bonhomme fails to disclose the following. Meanwhile, Baldassano teaches wherein to monitor compliance of the one or more new rules and the first set of rules, the processor further executes computer-readable instructions to:
receive an activity from the operator; and
determine the compliance based upon the activity (see [0057] is within compliance).
From the teaching of Baldassano, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Bonhomme’s automatic geofence determination with Baldassano’s teaching of compliance in order for “… assisting a user with compliance with a set of regulations… (see Baldassano Abstract).”
29. Re Claims 27, 34, 40: However, Bonhomme fails to disclose the following. Meanwhile, Baldassano teaches wherein to monitor compliance of a rule of the one or more new rules and the first set of rules, the processor further executes computer-readable
instructions to:
determine one or more activities previously received from the operator, wherein each
activity of the one or more activities has a start time after a rule start time of the rule and before a rule end time of the rule, and an activity type associated with the rule;
determine that at least one of the one or more activities satisfies the rule; and
designate the rule as satisfying compliance upon determining that at least one of the one
or more activities satisfies the rule (see [0057] is within compliance).
From the teaching of Baldassano, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Bonhomme’s automatic geofence determination with Baldassano’s teaching of compliance in order for “… assisting a user with compliance with a set of regulations… (see Baldassano Abstract).”
30. Claims 24, 31, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonhomme (US 2016/0003627) in view of Baldassano (US 2015/0242861) and Koen (US 2008/0094256).
31. Re Claims 24, 31, 38: Meanwhile, Bonhomme and Baldassano fail to disclose the following. Meanwhile, Koen teaches wherein to determine that the mobile unit has entered the new region, the processor executes computer-readable instructions to:
identify a current region in which the mobile unit is operating based on a second location of the mobile unit;
determine a defined region based on the first location;
compare the defined region with the current region;
and upon determining that the defined region is different from the current region, designate the defined region as the new region ([0058] “while the truck is located in city limits, the driver must maintain a speed below 50 km/h. However, outside of the city limits, the driver is allowed to maintain a speed of up to 80 km/h” and [0030] “Geofence Table 178 defines a plurality of geofences configured on the locator device 10… when, based on the location information received from the GPS satellites 14, the locator device 10 enters or leaves a geofence area, an event is generated and actions can be taken or device configuration 172 altered). Examiner notes that the system knows that if the truck is in city limits that rule is a speed limit is 50 km/h and if the truck is outside of city limits that the rule is a speed limit of 80 km/h).
From the teaching of Koen, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Bonhomme’s automatic geofence determination with Baldassano’s teaching of compliance in order and further with Koen’s teaching of defined regions for “… facilitating for GPS-based asset tracking… (see Koen Abstract).”
Examiner Notes
32. The Examiner suggests filing a terminal disclaimer to obviate the double patenting rejection. The Examiner suggests expounding upon what a mobile unit could be. The Examiner suggests incorporating claims 25 (dependent on 24) and 27 together into the independent claims. The Examiner suggests clearly defining what the rules are.
33. Finally, the Examiner suggests incorporating more hardware from the Specification and any unique arrangements of hardware, unique hardware, or unique ways the hardware is communicating. The aforementioned claim suggestions, in combination together, is suggested to help advance prosecution forward, although further search, examination, and consideration is required.
Conclusion
34. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Dutton et al (Automotive Informatics: Information Technology and Enterprise Transformation in the Automobile Industry, NPL) is found to be the most pertinent NPL prior art.
35. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAWAAD HAIDER whose telephone number is (571)272-7178. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8 AM to 5 PM.
36. 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.
37. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Florian Zeender can be reached on 571-272-6790. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
38. 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.
/FAWAAD HAIDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights