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 .
Notice to Applicant
The following is a Final Office action. In response to Examiner’s Non-Final Rejection of 05/05/2026, Applicant, on 07/26/2026, amended claims. Claims 1-22 are pending in this application and have been rejected below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/23/2026 have been fully considered, but they are not fully persuasive.
The double patenting rejection: At page 1 of the Remarks, Applicant notes that “Applicant is filing a terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.321(c) with this reply.” However, the Examiner reviewed the prosecution history along with the incoming documents filed on 07/23/2026 and notes that no Terminal Disclaimer has been filed in this application. The double patenting rejection has been reconsidered and updated accordingly in the instant office action in view of the most recent amendments. The double patenting rejection of claims 1-22 is maintained.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory 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 non-statutory obviousness-type 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); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting over claims 1-21 of copending Application No. 18/463,636 since the claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the "right to exclude" already granted in the patent(s).
Claims of instant App.
Claims of copending App. 18/463636
1
1
21
20
22
21
8
2
a9
3
13
8
14
9,10
15
11
16
12
17
13
18
15
19
16
20
17-19
2-7 and 10-12
1
The chart above maps claims of the instant application to corresponding claims of copending application 18/463,636 that are patentably indistinct, though not identical. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the slight differences between the claim language of the corresponding claims as being directed towards intention, slight variations in terminology, or obvious variants of corresponding claim elements, and therefore these claims are not patentably distinct from one another despite these slight differences. Accordingly, claims 1-21 of the instant application would have been deemed obvious in view of the above-noted claims of the copending application since "anticipation is the epitome of obviousness." See In re Kalm, 378 F.2d 959, 962 (CCPA 1967).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Horvitz; Eric J.Suresh. Recommending Location And Services Via Geospatial Collaborative Filtering, .U.S. PGPub 20070005419 Geospatial collaborative filtering (CF) with spatial (or location) logs and location updates that facilitates recommending location and/or services information to an active user. A location tracking system tracks the user, and is employed in part to determine when the user is associated with the location, if the user pauses at the location and how long the user dwells at the location.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Arif Ullah, whose telephone number is (571) 270-0161. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 9 AM and 5:30 PM.
If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Beth Boswell, can be reached at (571) 272-6737. The fax telephone numbers for this group are either (571) 273-8300 or (703) 872-9326 (for official communications including After Final communications labeled “Box AF”).
/Arif Ullah/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights