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 Application
This action is non-final office action in response to application 19/061,939 filed on February 24, 2025. Claim(s) 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Interpretation
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.
This application includes 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:
“system for providing…,” in Claim 15.
“a receiving component for receiving…,” in Claim(s) 15 and 18-19
“a creating component for creating…,” in Claim 15
“a filtering component for filtering…,” in Claim 15
“a providing component for providing…,” in Claim(s) 15 and 18-19
“a second filtering component for second filtering…,” in Claim 17
“a forming component for forming a pattern…,” in Claim(s) 18-19
“a limiting component for limiting…,” in Claim 20
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/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 this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A Prong 1: Independent Claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 recites an entity that receives location information of a user, which the entity can determine locations users have visited and then provide investigative ad-tech data to the entity. Independent Claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 as a whole recite limitation(s) that are directed to an abstract idea(s) of certain methods of organizing human activity: managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., social activities and/or following rules or instructions) and/or fundamental economic principles/practices (e.g., hedging and/or mitigating risk) and/or commercial or legal interactions (e.g., business relations and/or sales activities and/or advertising) and/or mental processes (e.g., observation, evaluation, and/or judgment).
Independent Claim(s) 1, 8, and 15, limitations of :receiving a plurality of locations as selected by a user,” “creating an initial data set, that have submitted ad-tech data for the plurality of locations,” “filtering the initial data set to identify a set of key-devices that have visited a plurality of plurality of location selected by the user,” and “providing the ad-tech data pertaining to the set of key-devices to the user,” function(s)/step(s) are merely certain methods of organizing human activity: managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., social activities and/or following rules or instructions) and/or fundamental economic principles/practices (e.g., hedging and/or mitigating risk) and/or commercial or legal interactions (e.g., business relations and/or sales activities and/or advertising) and/or mental processes (e.g., observation, evaluation, and/or judgment. Furthermore, as explained in the MPEP and the October 2019 update, where a series of step(s) recite judicial exceptions, examiners should combine all recited judicial exceptions and treat the claim as containing a single judicial exception for purposes of further eligibility analysis. (See, MPEP 2106.04, 2016.05(II) and October 2019 Update at Section I. B.). For instance, in this case, Independent Claim(s) 1, 8, and 15, are similar to an entity receiving mobile location data, which is used to analyze, filter, and provide possible criminal activity to the entity. The mere recitation of generic computer components (Claim 1: a non-transitory computer readable medium, processor, and mobile devices; Claim 8: mobile devices; and Claim 15: a general-purpose computing device, a system, a receiving component, a creating component, mobile devices, a filtering component, and a providing component) do not take the claims out of the enumerated group of certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes. Therefore, Independent Claim(s) 1, 8, and 15, recites the above abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims as a whole describes how to generally “apply,” the concept(s) of “receiving,” “creating,” “filtering,” and “providing,” respectively, information in a computer environment. The limitations that amount to “apply it,” are as follows (Claim 1: a non-transitory computer readable medium, processor, and mobile devices; Claim 8: mobile devices; and Claim 15: a general-purpose computing device, a system, a receiving component, a creating component, mobile devices, a filtering component, and a providing component). Examiner, notes that the non-transitory computer readable medium, processor, mobile devices, general-purpose computing device, system, receiving component, creating component, filtering component, and providing component, respectively, are recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer.
Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv, the court has held that task to receive, store, or transmit data are additional elements that amount to no more than “applying,” the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Here, the additional elements are merely receiving, creating, filtering, and providing, ad information which is no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. Also, see a method of using advertising as an exchange or currency being applied or implemented on the Internet, Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1754 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Furthermore, see the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Each of the above limitations simply implement an abstract idea that is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, which, is not practical application(s) of the abstract idea. Therefore, when viewed in combination these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claims are directed to the above abstract idea(s).
Step 2B: The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as noted previously, the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply,” the abstract idea in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are ineligible.
Claim(s) 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20: The various metrics of Dependent Claim(s) 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 merely narrows the previously recited abstract idea limitations. For the reasons described above with respect to Independent Claim 1, 8, and 15, these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than an abstract idea.
The dependent claim(s) 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20, above do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) in the dependent claim(s) above are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component(s), which, do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, Claim(s) 1-20 are not patent eligible.
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, 4-6, 8-9, 11-13, 15-16, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schuler et al. (US 8,838,131 B1) in view of Gordon et al. (US 2014/0045530 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Schuler et al., teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by a processor, result in the processor performing the following steps: (Column 2, Lines 23-55); and (Claim 13)(Schuler et al. teaches computer-readable media that includes volatile and non-volatile media. The media stores information and a processor to execute the instructions)
receiving a plurality of locations
creating an initial data set from mobile devices that have submitted ad-tech data for the plurality of locations. (Column 7, Lines 4-11)(Schuler et al. teaches generating (e.g., creating) a list of users of wireless devices located within a predefined distance from a specific location within a period of time, which the list includes identifying information for each of the users and their mobile devices (e.g., ad-tech data))
providing the ad-tech data pertaining to the set of key-devices to the user. (Column 6, Lines 59-67); and (Claim 4)(Schuler et al. teaches that the entity can receive the geographic location, which consist of location information associated with the wireless device for a predefined period of time surrounding the time of the occurrence of the event. Schuler et al., further, teaches the event can be a commission of a crime or other event)
With respect to the above limitations: while Schuler et al. teaches receiving location data of mobile user devices, which the information is used to create a data set of devices that are within a predefined distance from a location and then provide those devices to an entity. The entity can then determine devices that were within a location of an criminal event. However, Schuler et al., doesn’t explicitly teach selecting the locations and filtering the initial data set to identify a set of key-devices that have visited a plurality of the locations.
But, Gordon et al. in the analogous art of determining wireless terminal locations, teaches
receiving a plurality of locations as selected by a user. (Paragraph(s) 0151-0152 and 0179)(Gordon et al. teaches an investigator can define (e.g., select) the geo-temporal attributes of the predefined geo-temporal pattern, which the system can use the geo-temporal attributes to track or surveil user wireless terminals)
filtering the initial data set to identify a set of key-devices that have visited a plurality of the plurality of locations selected by the user. (Paragraph(s) 119, 0121, 0128-0131, 0179, 0188, and 0191)(Gordon et al. teaches the geo-temporal analysis system will receive a plurality or data and a pre-defined geo-temporal pattern. The temporal pattern is generated from analyzing a plurality of records for each candidate gathered over a period of time. The temporal patterns can include a set of locations visited by the wireless terminal over a given period of time and/or the set of locations where the wireless terminal spends more than a certain amount of time. The system can then filter/remove out the records)
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system that receives mobile device location information to determine a device near a criminal event of Schuler et al., by incorporating the teachings of filtering pre-defined location data, which the system can use the pre-defined information to collect mobile devices location information based on visits within an area of Gordon et al., with the motivation to reduce the number or potential targets in an criminal investigation. (Gordon et al.: Paragraph 0021)
Regarding Claim 2, Schuler et al./Gordon et al., teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 1.
However, Schuler et al., doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the processor further performs the step of: receiving a time frame from the user prior to the step of creating.
But, Gordon et al. in the analogous art of determining wireless terminal locations, wherein the processor further performs the step of: receiving a time frame from the user prior to the step of creating. (Paragraph(s) 0044, 0118-0119, and 0187-0189)(Gordon et al. teaches that the geo-temporal pattern information can be received days, weeks, and/or months (e.g., time frame). The system can collect the user data based on the wireless terminal at a certain point in time such as noon and/or every weekday. The system will then filter the records and build a set of records that satisfy at least one of the applied geo-temporal attributes)
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system that receives mobile device location information to determine a device near a criminal event of Schuler et al., by incorporating the teachings of filtering pre-defined location data, which the system can use the pre-defined temporal pattern to collect information days, weeks, and/or months. The system can then build records that satisfy the applied geo-temporal attributes of Gordon et al., with the motivation to reduce the number or potential targets in an criminal investigation. (Gordon et al.: Paragraph 0021)
Regarding Claim 4, Schuler et al./Gordon et al., teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 1.
However, Schuler et al., doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the processor further performs the steps of:
receiving an interest key device from a user selected from the set of key devices.
forming a pattern of life for the interest key-device.
providing the pattern of life to the user.
But, Gordon et al. in the analogous art of determining wireless terminal locations, teaches wherein the processor further performs the steps of:
receiving an interest key-device from a user selected from the set of key devices. (Paragraph(s) 0142-0145 and 0179)(Gordon et al. teaches an investigator can have intelligence that suggest of known terrorist that meet with a close collaborator every day. The geo-temporal analysis logic can be used to measure how each candidate’s geo-temporal pattern matches with the geo-temporal pattern of each of the other candidate patterns. Gordon et al., further, teaches that the system can receive location information)
forming a pattern of life for the interest key-device. (Paragraph(s) 0146-0148, and 0150-0151)(Gordon et al. teaches the system can measure preciseness, geo-temporal analysis to infer a collaborative relationship between a first user of a first candidate wireless terminal and another user and generate a corresponding indication of the inference. The system can infer that more than two users have mutually collaborative relationships or that a user has a first collaborative relationship with a first person and a second collaborative relationship with a second person. The system can also receive location information from both users to determine if the pattern location information matches the pre-defined geo-temporal pattern. The geo-temporal patten analysis is rooted in the users location and movement over time)
providing the pattern of life to the user. (Paragraph 0152)(teaches that the system can display the preciseness measurements and the outcome relationship between the individuals. The system will display the information to an external surveillance system operated by law enforcement authorities)
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system that receives mobile device location information to determine a device near a criminal event of Schuler et al., by incorporating the teachings of determining a first and second persons location patterns. The system can determine the preciseness of the information and then provide the information to a law enforcement agent of Gordon et al., with the motivation to reduce the number or potential targets in an criminal investigation. (Gordon et al.: Paragraph 0021)
Regarding Claim 5, Schuler et al./Gordon et al., teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 1.
However, Schuler et al., doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the processor further performs the steps of:
receiving a plurality of interest key-devices from a user selected from the set of key devices.
forming a cooperative pattern of life for the plurality interest key-devices to determine the interaction therebetween.
providing the cooperative pattern of life to the user.
But, Gordon et al. in the analogous art of determining wireless terminal locations, teaches wherein the processor further performs the steps of:
receiving a plurality of interest key-devices from a user selected from the set of key devices. (Paragraph(s) 0142-0145 and 0179)(Gordon et al. teaches an investigator can have intelligence that suggest of known terrorist meet with a close collaborator every day. The geo-temporal analysis logic can be used to measure how each candidate’s geo-temporal pattern matches with the geo-temporal pattern of each of the other candidate patterns)
forming a cooperative pattern of life for the plurality interest key-devices to determine the interaction therebetween. (Paragraph(s) 0146-0148 and 0150-0151)(Gordon et al. teaches the system can measure preciseness, geo-temporal analysis to infer a collaborative relationship between a first user of a first candidate wireless terminal and another user and generate a corresponding indication of the inference. The system can infer that more than two users have mutually collaborative relationships or that a user has a first collaborative relationship with a first person and a second collaborative relationship with a second person. The system can also receive location information from both users to determine if the pattern location information matches the pre-defined geo-temporal pattern. The geo-temporal patten analysis is rooted in the users location and movement over time)
providing the cooperative pattern of life to the user. (Paragraph 0152)(teaches that the system can display the preciseness measurements and the outcome relationship between the individuals. The system will display the information to an external surveillance system operated by law enforcement authorities)
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system that receives mobile device location information to determine a device near a criminal event of Schuler et al., by incorporating the teachings of determining a first and second persons location patterns. The system can determine the preciseness of the information and then provide the information to a law enforcement agent of Gordon et al., with the motivation to reduce the number or potential targets in an criminal investigation. (Gordon et al.: Paragraph 0021)
Regarding Claim 6, Schuler et al./Gordon et al., teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 1.
However, Schuler et al., doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the processor further performs the step of: limiting the plurality of locations to no more than ten locations.
But, Gordon et al. in the analogous art of determining wireless terminal locations, teaches wherein the processor further performs the step of: limiting the plurality of locations to no more than ten locations. (Paragraph(s) 0179-0180)(Gordon et al. teaches an investigator can define a geo-temporal attribute of the pre-defined geo-temporal pattern such as a person that regularly visits a given location and makes calls to certain countries of interest. The investigator can define the geo-temporal attribute to include a location and a period of time, such as location H (i.e., one location)(e.g., locations no more than ten locations) from 9:30 to 10:30 am on Jul. 11, 2012. Examiner, respectfully, notes per MPEP 2144.05(I), the claimed periodic range (i.e., no more than ten locations) are obvious because the claimed ranges are overlapped and/or lie inside the ranges disclosed in the above prior art (i.e., location H, (e.g., one location)) thus they are similar/overlapping)
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system that receives mobile device location information to determine a device near a criminal event of Schuler et al., by incorporating the teachings of an investigator define at least one location to investigate of Gordon et al., with the motivation to reduce the number or potential targets in an criminal investigation. (Gordon et al.: Paragraph 0021)
Regarding Claim 8, Schuler et al./Gordon et al., teaches a computer implemented method comprising the steps of:
receiving a plurality of locations as selected by a user. (See, relevant rejection of Claim 1(a))
creating an initial data set from mobile devices that have submitted ad-tech data for the plurality of locations. (See, relevant rejection of Claim 1(b))
filtering the initial data set to identify a set of key-devices that have visited a plurality of the plurality of locations selected by the user. (See, relevant rejection of Claim 1(c))
providing the ad-tech data pertaining to the set of key-devices to the user. (See, relevant rejection of Claim 1(d))
Regarding Claim 9, Schuler et al./Gordon et al., teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 8 and receiving a time frame from the user prior to the step of creating. (See, relevant rejection(s) of Claim(s) 2 and 8)
Regarding Claim 11, Schuler et al./Gordon et al., teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 8 and
receiving an interest key device from a user selected from the set of key devices. (See, relevant rejection(s) of Claim(s) 4(a) and 8)
forming a pattern of life for the interest key-device. (See, relevant rejection(s) of Claim(s) 4(b) and 8)
providing the pattern of life to the user. See, relevant rejection(s) of Claim(s) 4(c) and 8)
Regarding Claim 12, Schuler et al./Gordon et al., teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 8 and
receiving a plurality of interest key-devices from a user selected from the set of key devices. (See, relevant rejection(s) of Claim(s) 5(a) and 8)
forming a cooperative pattern of life for the plurality interest key-devices to determine the interaction therebetween. (See, relevant rejection(s) of Claim(s) 5(b) and 8)
providing the cooperative pattern of life to the user. (See, relevant rejection(s) of Claim(s) 5(a) and 8)
Regarding Claim 13, Schuler et al./Gordon et al., teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 8 and limiting the plurality of locations to no more than ten locations. (See, relevant rejection(s) of Claim(s) 6 and 8)
Regarding Claim 15, Schuler et al./Gordon et al., teaches a system comprising:
a general-purpose computing device associated with a user.
a system for providing information to the user including:
a receiving component for receiving a plurality of locations Claim 1(a))
a creating component for creating an initial data set from mobile devices that have submitted ad-tech data for the plurality of locations. (See, relevant rejection of Claim 1(b))
a filtering component filtering the initial data set to identify a set of key-devices that have visited a plurality of the plurality of locations selected by the user. (See, relevant rejection of Claim 1(c))
a providing component providing the ad-tech data pertaining to the set of key-devices to the user. (See, relevant rejection of Claim 1(d))
Regarding Claim 16, Schuler et al./Gordon et al., teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 15 and a receiving component receiving a time frame from the user prior to the step of creating. (See, relevant rejection(s) of Claim(s) 2 and 8)
Regarding Claim 18, Schuler et al./Gordon et al., teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 15 and
a receiving component receiving an interest key device from a user selected from the set of key devices. (See, relevant rejection(s) of Claim(s) 4(a) and 8)
a forming component forming a pattern of life for the interest key-device. See, relevant rejection(s) of Claim(s) 4(b) and 8)
a providing component providing the pattern of life to the user. (See, relevant rejection(s) of Claim(s) 4(c) and 8)
Regarding Claim 19, Schuler et al./Gordon et al., teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 8 and
a receiving component receiving a plurality of interest key-devices from a user selected from the set of key devices. See, relevant rejection(s) of Claim(s) 5(a) and 8)
a forming component forming a cooperative pattern of life for the plurality interest key-devices to determine the interaction therebetween. (See, relevant rejection(s) of Claim(s) 5(b) and 8)
a providing component providing the cooperative pattern of life to the user. (See, relevant rejection(s) of Claim(s) 5(c) and 8)
Regarding Claim 20, Schuler et al./Gordon et al., teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 8 and a limiting component limiting the plurality of locations to no more than ten locations. (See, relevant rejection of Claim 6 and 8)
Claim(s) 3, 10, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schuler et al. (US 8,838,131 B1) in view of Gordon et al. (US 2014/0045530 A1) and further in view of Khann et al. (US 2015/0006279 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Schuler et al./Gordon et al., teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 1.
However, Schuler et al./Gordon et al., do not explicitly teach wherein the processor further performs the step of: second filtering out coincidental or false positive/negative data prior to the step of providing.
But, Khann et al. in the analogous art of , teaches wherein the processor further performs the step of: second filtering out coincidental or false positive/negative data prior to the step of providing. (Paragraph(s) 0029-0031)(Khann et al. teaches clustering locations of a user device into valid clusters and associating the locations of the user device with a commercial entity. The system can then filter out the cluster by proximity to relevant store locations. The clusters can be further filtered based on a cluster duration in order to filter out false positives such as user device passing a store location or remaining at a commercial entity location for an extended period of time)
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system that receives mobile device location information to determine a device near a criminal event of Schuler et al. and filtering pre-defined location data, which the system can use the pre-defined temporal pattern to collect information days, weeks, and/or months. The system can then build records that satisfy the applied geo-temporal attributes of Gordon et al., by incorporating the teachings of filtering out false positives of user location data of Khann et al., with the motivation to improve the indication of user activity at a commercial entity. (Khann et al.: Paragraph 0002)
Regarding Claim 10, Schuler et al./Gordon et al./Khann et al., teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 8 and second filtering out coincidental or false positive/negative data prior to the step of providing. (See, relevant rejection(s) of Claim(s) 3 and 8)
Regarding Claim 17, Schuler et al./Gordon et al./Khann et al., teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 15 and a second filtering component for second filtering out coincidental or false positive/negative data prior to the step of providing. (See, relevant rejection(s) of Claim(s) 3 and 8)
Claim(s) 7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schuler et al. (US 8,838,131 B1) in view of Gordon et al. (US 2014/0045530 A1) and further in view of Rossmo (US 5,781,704).
Regarding Claim 7, Schuler et al./Gordon et al., teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 1.
However, Schuler et al./Gordon et al., do not explicitly teach wherein the processor further performs the steps of :
uncovering any common unknown key locations.
Providing the common unknown key locations to the user.
But, Rossmo in the analogous art of determining a criminals residence or workplace, teaches wherein the processor further performs the steps of :
uncovering any common unknown key locations. (Column 6, Lines 45-67) and (Column 7, Lines 1-9)(Rossmo teaches a model can map boundaries delineating offender’s activity, which are established using the locations of the crimes. The system can then calculate crime locations and determine the points that lie outside of the buffer zone. The system will combine the multiple numbers on a map point and the higher the score the greater the probability that the point contains the offender’s residence)
Providing the common unknown key locations to the user. (Column 7, Lines 4-8); (Column 11, Lines 29-31); and (Column 14, Lines 25-31)(Rossmo teaches the system can output the map, which includes the superimposed percentage values. The map suggest where the offender might reside)
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system that receives mobile device location information to determine a device near a criminal event of Schuler et al. and filtering pre-defined location data, which the system can use the pre-defined temporal pattern to collect information days, weeks, and/or months. The system can then build records that satisfy the applied geo-temporal attributes of Gordon et al., by incorporating the teachings of calculating percentage values of an offender residence based on crime stats. The system can then display the map that suggest the location where the offender resides of Rossmo, with the motivation to help police focus their search to appropriate criminal villages. (Rossmo: Column 3, Lines 4-13)
Regarding Claim 14, Schuler et al./Gordon et al./Rossmo, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 8 and
uncovering any common unknown key locations. (See, relevant rejection of Claim(s) 7(a) and 8)
providing the common unknown key locations to the user. (See, relevant rejection of Claim(s) 7(b) and 8)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
“Crime analysis and detection based on location using machine learning,” by S.L. Jany Shabu, Varshith Peddineni, Patan Firoz Khan, J. Refonaa, and M. Maheswari, AIP Conf. Proc. 2 July 2025, (hereinafter Crime). Crime teaches location based crime detection. The system includes a database, which the database is created to include criminal incidents that includes location, time, type of crime, and other pertinent data. The system will verify the source data. Crime, further, teaches that the system will remove inconsistencies or missing values from the crime location database. The system can build a model to predict crime based on location. The system can receive law enforcement or policymaker input such as areas of interest, time period, and specific crime types that want to analyze or predict. Examiner, respectfully, notes that the prior art publication date fails to predate applicants priority date.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN A HEFLIN whose telephone number is (571)272-3524. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 - 5:00 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, Jeff Zimmerman can be reached at (571) 272-4602. 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.
/B.A.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3628 /MICHAEL P HARRINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628