Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
2. Claims 1-18 are present for examination.
Priority
3. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
4. Applicant states that this application is a continuation or divisional application of the prior-filed application. A continuation or divisional application cannot include new matter. Applicant is required to delete the benefit claim or change the relationship (continuation or divisional application) to continuation-in-part because this application contains the following matter not disclosed in the prior-filed application:
In claim 1, the limitation of “at least one indicator including a venue graphic that selectively overlays a geographical location of the respective venue on the interactive map” in lines 12-13.
In claims 7-8 and 17, the limitation of “first and second interactive objects adjacent to the sliding confidence bar” in line 3 of claim 7; line 2 of claim 8; or line 5 of claim 17.
In claims 17 and 18, the limitation of “the venue graphic and the text are concurrently displayed” in line 6 of claim 17 or “a summary graphic that displays, concurrently with the venue graphs” in lines 2-3 of claim 18.
It is noted that in view of MPEP 201.07, “The disclosure presented in the continuation must not include any subject matter which would constitute new matter if submitted as an amendment to the parent application.”
Information Disclosure Statement
5. The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 04/07/2025 was considered by the examiner. It is noted that the IDS filed on 10/23/2025 was not considered by the examiner since the non-patent literature document listed was not submitted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
7. Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, this claim recites the limitation of “a venue graphic that selectively overlays a geographical location of the respective venue” [emphasis added] in lines 12-13. Since the specification lacks the description regarding this feature, it is unclear how and in what manner the claim limitation of “a venue graphic that selectively overlays” is performed. Clarification is required.
In addition, claim 1 recites the limitation of "the respective venues" [emphasis added] in lines 9-10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 7, this claim recites the limitation of “first and second interactive objects adjacent to the sliding confidence bar” [emphasis added] in lines 2-3. Since the specification lacks the description regarding this feature, it is unclear what exactly constitutes the phrase of “first and second interactive objects adjacent to the sliding confidence bar.” Clarification is required.
Also, it appears that claims 8 and 17 recite the similar claim limitations of claim 7. These claims are rejected due to the similar reasons as set forth with respect to claim 7. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 8, this claim recites the phrase of “a third interactive object” [emphasis added] in line 2. However, it appears that there is neither a first interactive object nor a second interactive object being claimed. Thus, it is not clear what exactly constitutes a “third interactive object.” Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 17, this claim recites the limitation of “the venue graphic and the text are concurrently displayed in the graphical user interface” [emphasis added] in lines 6. Since the specification lacks the description regarding this feature, it is unclear what exactly constitutes the phrase of “concurrently displayed.” Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 18, this claim recites the limitation of “a summary graphic that displays, concurrently with the venue graphs in the graphical user interface” [emphasis added] in lines 2-3. Since the specification lacks the description regarding this feature, it is unclear what exactly constitutes the phrase of “a summary graphic the displays concurrently with the venue graphs.” Clarification is required.
The claims not specifically mentioned above are rejected by virtue of their dependency on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. Claims 1-3 and 9-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 11,600,166 (hereinafter Trepanier), in view of US 2017/0236399 (hereinafter Ross), and further in view of U.S. 10,264,389 (hereinafter Hwang).
Regarding claim 1, as far as the claim is understood, Trepanier discloses a graphical user interface for displaying firearm notifications on a mobile computing device comprising:
[a first display window including an interactive map that displays] a plurality of venues, wherein the venues are associated with respective venue records, the venue records are associated with respective firearms policy records [i.e., the trigger-based rules] (col. 4, lns. 46-54; col. 10, lns. 38-64; col. 34, lns. 6-24; “…generating an alert for a danger located in proximity to a location of interest using a monitoring system. The method includes receiving an occurrence record indicative of an event, wherein the occurrence record includes a first geographic parameter of the event; comparing the first occurrence record to a trigger-based rule comprising a trigger condition, the trigger condition is met by the occurrence record when the event corresponds to a gunshot event”; and “…The received occurrence record is compared to an initial or trigger condition of a trigger-based rule to verify that the event type of the occurrence record corresponds to a gunshot event type at step 720”); and
wherein the at least one indicator is generated based on the firearms policy record associated with the respective venue record (col. 9, lns. 14-35; “In some embodiments, the alert may include a message that is sent to one or more computing devices”; and “…causes the processor to receive an occurrence record indicative of a travel a distance on a target road and an identifier of the target road; compare the occurrence record to a trigger based rule comprising a trigger condition, wherein the trigger condition is met by the occurrence record when the travel time information meets or exceeds a vehicle travel time threshold value determinative of vehicle congestion…”).
Trepanier does not explicitly disclose the features of wherein and the firearms policy records [are associated with respective user records and] include one or more parameters for characterizing a respective firearms policy of the respective venue; and an authorization status of the respective user record, and the authorization status is based on whether the respective user record is authorized to establish the firearms policy record for the respective venue record. However, Ross discloses that “…Embodiments of the invention may compare a sensed geographic location of the system to a set of locations in which carriage of a firearm is restricted. Embodiments may further detect a status of the luggage, such as a presence of the firearm or an active state of the luggage. Based on the detected status and comparison of the geographic location of the system to the set of restricted locations, an alert may be presented informing a user of a restricted carriage condition…” ([0024 and 0042]). Ross further discloses that “A restrictive carriage location may be any area, region, building, property, municipality, address, or other space that has official or unofficial restrictions on the carriage of sensitive cargo, such as a firearm. A set of restrictive carriage locations may be contained within memory unit 118 of article of luggage 102, a memory of electronic devic3 104, and/or stored at remote database 106 and accessible by control unit 114…” ([0049-0050]). Ross furthermore discloses that “As an example, an owner may be carrying an article of luggage 102 formed as a briefcase containing a pistol in a firearm compartment 108. The article of luggage includes a communication module 112 operative to establish a communication link with the owner’s cell phone. A sensor unit is able to detect the presence of the pistol based on collapsible walls having an expanded configuration. Subsequently, the control unit 114 transmits a firearm presence indication to the cell phone. In this example, the user’s phone is operable to detect the geographic location of the system. In alternative embodiments, the article of luggage may perform the detection of the geographic location of the system. Upon sensing a geographic location indicating that the owner has entered or is entering a restricted carriage location such as a bank, an alert is presented to the owner on the cell phone indicating that the carried firearm entered a restricted carriage location…” ([0051-0052]) and it would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art to utilize the teachings of Ross in the system of Trépanier in view of the desire to enhance the ruling process by utilizing the firearm detecting scheme resulting in improving the efficiency of an event monitoring system.
The references do not explicitly disclose the feature of wherein a first display window including an interactive map that displays a plurality of venues; an icon on the interactive map, the icon associated with a geographical location of the mobile computing device, wherein the first display window displays the respective venues based on the geographical location of the mobile computing device; at least one indicator including a venue graphic that selectively overlays a geographical location of the respective venue on the interactive map in response to the geographical location of the venue being within a preselected proximity of the icon; wherein a visual contrast of the venue graphic is depicted in the first display window based on an assigned confidence level, the assigned confidence level based on a degree of confidence that a user associated with the respective user record is authorized to establish the firearms policy record of the respective venue record. However, Hwang discloses that “…For instance, in at least one embodiment, the transportation matching system application on the requestor computing device can enable a requestor to drag-and-drop a pin on an interactive map display to indicate the device-based location” (col. 3, lns. 23-36). Hwang also discloses that “After calculating the confidence score associated with the device-based location and one or more other potential pickup locations within a predefined proximity of the device-based location…” (col. 10, lns. 46-67). In addition, Hwang discloses that “…For instance, the transportation matching system 102 identifies this transportation matching system history by determining an area with the threshold distance of the device-based location (e.g., a circle with a one hundred yard radius originating at the device-based location…” (col. 13, lns. 44-59) and it would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art to utilize the teachings of Hwang in the modified system of Trépanier in view of the desire to enhance the ruling process by utilizing the specific location indicator via an interactive map scheme resulting in improving the efficiency of an event monitoring system.
Regarding claim 2, Trépanier in view of Ross and Hwang disclose the graphical user interface wherein:
the authorization status is determined in response to validating an identity of the user associated with the respective user record (Hwang: col. 9, lns. 57-col. 10, lns. 27). Therefore, the limitations of claim 2 are rejected in the analysis of claim 1, and the claim is rejected on that basis.
Regarding claim 3, Trépanier in view of Ross and Hwang do not explicitly disclose the graphical user interface wherein a gradient of the visual contrast of the venue graphic is depicted in the first display window according the assigned confidence level with respect to a range of confidence levels. However, the specific displaying scheme utilized would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art in view of meeting different design requirements and achieving the particular desired performance.
Regarding claim 9, Trépanier in view of Ross and Hwang disclose the graphical user interface wherein: the confidence level is assigned based on two or more user records of the plurality of user records that are associated with the respective venue record (Trépanier: col. 34, lns. 6-37) and (Hwang: col. 22, lns. 52-col. 23, lns. 3). Therefore, the limitations of claim 9 are rejected in the analysis of claim 1, and the claim is rejected on that basis.
.
Regarding claim 10, Trépanier in view of Ross and Hwang do not explicitly disclose the graphical user interface wherein: the authorization status is assigned a respective authorization type from a set of authorization status types, and the set of authorization status types including an unverified authorization type and verified authorization status type. However, the specific user record data utilized would have been an obvious design choice to one with ordinary skill in the art depending on the needs of the particular application and involving only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 11, Trépanier in view of Ross and Hwang disclose the graphical user interface wherein:
the venue graphic is associated with a perimeter of the respective venue (Trépanier: col. 2, lns. 50-53) and (Hwang: col. 13, lns. 44-59). Therefore, the limitations of claim 11 are rejected in the analysis of claim 1, and the claim is rejected on that basis.
Regarding claim 12, Trépanier in view of Ross and Hwang disclose the graphical user interface wherein:
the icon includes a ring about a point corresponding to the geographical location of the mobile computing device, and the ring is established by a radius corresponding to the preselected proximity (Hwang: col. 4, lns. 15-32; col. 13, lns. 44-59). Therefore, the limitations of claim 11 are rejected in the analysis of claim 1, and the claim is rejected on that basis.
Regarding claim 13, Trépanier in view of Ross and Hwang disclose the graphical user interface wherein:
the venue graphic overlaps with the ring on the interactive map (Hwang: col. 8, lns. 8-22; col. 13, lns. 44-59). Therefore, the limitations of claim 13 are rejected in the analysis of claim 1, and the claim is rejected on that basis.
Regarding claim 14, Trépanier in view of Ross and Hwang disclose the graphical user interface wherein:
the confidence level is a weighted average based on the authorization status of each user record associated with the respective firearms policy record (Trépanier: col. 34, lns. 6-37), (Ross: [0052]) and (Hwang: col. 2, lns. 45-61; col. 23, lns. 50-64). Therefore, the limitations of claim 14 are rejected in the analysis of claim 1, and the claim is rejected on that basis.
Regarding claim 15, Trépanier in view of Ross and Hwang disclose the graphical user interface wherein:
the confidence level is based on a duration since a submission of the respective firearms policy record (Hwang: col. 22, lns. 52-col. 23, lns. 26). Therefore, the limitations of claim 15 are rejected in the analysis of claim 1, and the claim is rejected on that basis.
Regarding claim 16, Trépanier in view of Ross and Hwang disclose the graphical user interface wherein:
the at least one indicator includes a text object that overlays the interactive map at a distance from the venue graphic and the icon, and the text object displays information corresponding to the firearms policy record associated with the venue graphic (Ross: [0048-0049]; figs. 5-6) and (Hwang: col. 13, lns. 44-59). Therefore, the limitations of claim 16 are rejected in the analysis of claim 1, and the claim is rejected on that basis.
Regarding claim 17, as far as the claim is understood, Trépanier in view of Ross and Hwang disclose the graphical user interface further comprising:
a third display window that displays text associated with one or more parameters that characterize the firearms policy of the firearms policy record associated with the venue graphic; wherein the third display window is adjacent to the first display window such that the venue graphic and the text are concurrently displayed in the graphical user interface (Trépanier: col. 42, lns. 15-25; col. 43, lns. 16-36), (Ross: [0049-0051]) and (Hwang: figs. 6A-6B). Therefore, the limitations of claim 17 are rejected in the analysis of claim 1, and the claim is rejected on that basis.
Regarding claim 18, as far as the claim is understood, Trépanier in view of Ross and Hwang disclose the graphical user interface wherein:
the at least one indicator includes a summary graphic that displays, concurrently with the venue graphic, a restriction status of the respective firearms policy record and a numerical value of the assigned confidence level (Trépanier: col. 43, lns. 16-36), (Ross: [0048-0049]) and (Hwang: col. 8, lns. 8-22; figs. 6A-6B). Therefore, the limitations of claim 18 are rejected in the analysis of claim 1, and the claim is rejected on that basis.
11. Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trépanier in view of Ross and Hwang, and further in view of US 2022/0261549 (hereinafter Schreiber).
Regarding claim 4, Trépanier in view of Ross and Hwang disclose the graphical user interface wherein:
the at least one indicator is displayed in response to the assigned confidence level meeting one or more confidence level thresholds (Trépanier: col. 34, lns. 6-37) and (Hwang: col. 13, lns. 44-59). The references do not explicitly disclose the features of wherein information associated with the respective firearms policy record is excluded from display in response to the assigned confidence level not meeting the one or more confidence level thresholds.
However, such features are well known in the art as disclosed by Schreiber ([0063 and 0073]; “…For example, if the semantic result meet or exceeds a threshold (e.g., medium, high, very high), the prediction is determined to be of sufficient quality to display to the user. However, if the semantic result does not meet or exceed the threshold, the prediction is determined to be of insufficient quality to display to the user…”) and it would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art to utilize the teachings of Schreiber in the modified system of Trépanier in view of the desire to enhance the ruling process system by utilizing the confidence level displaying scheme resulting in improving the user validation.
Regarding claim 5, Trépanier in view of Ross, Hwang and Schreiber disclose the graphical user interface further comprising:
a second display window including one or more interactive objects that set the one or more confidence level thresholds in response to user interaction (Trépanier: col. 34, lns. 6-37) and (Hwang: col. 13, lns. 44-59). Therefore, the limitations of claim 5 are rejected in the analysis of claim 4, and the claim is rejected on that basis.
12 Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trépanier in view of Ross, Hwang and Schreiber, and further in view of PCT/CN2021/095827 (hereinafter Sun).
Regarding claim 6, Trépanier in view of Ross, Hwang and Schreiber disclose the graphical user interface wherein:
the one or more interactive objects adjust the one or more confidence level thresholds in response to user interaction [with a sliding confidence bar] associated with a range of selectable confidence levels in the second display window (Hwang: col. 18, lns. 41-col. 19, lns. 2).
The references do not explicitly disclose the feature of utilizing the user interaction with a sliding confidence bar. However, such feature is well known in the art as disclosed by Sun ([0149 and 0152]; fig. 11) and it would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art to utilize the teachings of Sun in the modified system of Trépanier in view of the desire to enhance the ruling process by utilizing the specific configuration tool resulting in improving the data displaying system.
Regarding claim 7, as far as the claim is understood, Trépanier in view of Ross, Hwang, Schreiber and Sun disclose discloses the graphical user interface wherein:
the one or more interactive objects include first and second interactive objects adjacent to the sliding confidence bar, the first interactive object is associated with a first confidence level threshold, and the second interactive object is associated with a second confidence level threshold, and the first and second interactive objects are slidable along the sliding confidence bar in response to user interaction to adjust the respective first and second confidence level thresholds (Hwang: col. 18, lns. 41-col. 19, lns. 2) and (Sun: [0168 and 01999]; figs. 17a-17c). Therefore, the limitations of claim 7 are rejected in the analysis of claim 6, and the claim is rejected on that basis.
Regarding claim 8, as far as the claim is understood, Trépanier in view of Ross and Hwang do not explicitly disclose the graphical user interface further comprising:
a third interactive object adjacent to a sliding alert bar associated with a range of selectable alert distances, wherein the third interactive object is slidable along the sliding alert bar in response to user interaction to adjust the preselected proximity. However, such feature is well known in the art as disclosed by Sun ([0149, 0161-0162]; figs. 11 and 15) and it would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art to utilize the teachings of Sun in the modified system of Trépanier in view of the desire to enhance the ruling process by utilizing the specific configuration tool resulting in improving the data displaying system.
Conclusion
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONICA M PYO whose telephone number is (571)272-8192. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4pm.
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, APU MOFIZ can be reached at 571-272-4080. 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.
/MONICA M PYO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2161
Prosecution Insights