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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Charugundla (US Pub 2014/0357226).
A computer-implemented system for providing user chat by location functionality, said computer-implemented system comprising:
configuring two or more client devices for communicating wirelessly over a network with a server (via configuring user equipments 134 for communicating over a network with communication system102; see fig. 1; also see paragraph [0005])
configuring the server for communicating wirelessly over the network with each of the two or more client devices (configuring the communication system 102 for wirelessly over the network with each of the two or more user equipments 134; see fig. 1; also see paragraph [0005])
configuring each of two or more client devices for displaying a push-to-talk button, with toggling of the push-to-talk button thereby enabling voice communicating with at least a portion of the other of the two or more client devices (via displaying push to talk button; see fig. 4; also see paragraph [0007]);
configuring the server for limiting the voice communicating to being only with the other of the two or more client devices positioned within a threshold radial distance (via limiting the communication to equipments positioning within a geographic zone; see paragraph [0007]);
configuring each of the two or more client devices for setting of a respective said threshold distance (via configuring user equipments to define the geographic zone; see paragraph [0005]- [0006]).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Charugundla (US Pub 2014/0357226) in view of Hernoud et al. (US Pub 2016/0227376).
As of claim 2, Chargundla discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention as mentioned in claim 1 above, configuring each of the two or more client devices for displaying an interactive map, and for positioning on the interactive map a respective icon for each of the two or more client devices at its GPS location.
Hernoud discloses a system for providing user chat by location functionality comprising the function of configuring each of the two or more client devices for displaying an interactive map, and for positioning on the interactive map a respective icon for each of the two or more client devices at its GPS location (see fig. 13; also see paragraph [0107]).
From the teaching of Hernoud it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the system of Chargundla to include the function of displaying location of other devices as taught by Hernoud in order to assist the user in determining location of other devices.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Charugundla (US Pub 2014/0357226) in view of Hernoud et al. (US Pub 2016/0227376) further in view of Bridge et al. (US Pub 2014/0066105).
As of claims 3-4, combination of Charugundla and Hernoud discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention as mentioned in claim 2 above, Hernoud further discloses that the user can perform text communication with the other users (see paragraph [0016]), however the it does not disclose displaying a speech bubble
Bridge discloses a communication system wherien a speech bubble 506 containing the text of communication is displayed in proximity to the icon of the user device (see figs. 4A or 4B; also see paragraph [0041]-[0042]).
From the teaching of Bridge, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the combination of combination of Charugundla and Hernoud to include the function of displaying speech bubble containing text as taught by Bridge in order to display location and messages during a communication session.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NABIL H SYED whose telephone number is (571)270-3028. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 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, Davetta W Goins can be reached at (571) 272-2957. 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.
/NABIL H SYED/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights