Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Double Patenting
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 claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claims because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claims. 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 reference 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. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321 (b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-l.jsp.
Claims 2-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,352,582 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the following:
The reference claim 1 and the currently examined claim 2 include the following common features: both claims include methods that are performed by a system having a memory, and at least one hardware processor; Both claims involve determining a first location of a first user's mobile device based on global positioning information (e.g., GPS, cellular data); Both claim involve determining that a second user will be leaving a specific second location; Both methods specifically determine that this departure will occur "within a period of time;” Both claim include the methods that cause a navigation option to be displayed on the first user's mobile device based on the determined departure of the second user.
The differences between two claims are: the reference claim determines a second location based on a "group of users" leaving, while claim 2 is simply determining that a "second user" will be leaving; the reference claim explicitly recites "receiving global positioning information of a mobile device of a first user," which is absent from claim 2; the reference claim determines the second location based on the group's departure while claim 2 focuses on determining the departure of the second user generally. It is noted changing from a group to an individual (or vice-versa) is often seen as a predictable variation. For example, determining that one person will leave a location based on GPS is similar to determining a group of users will leave.
The subject matter claimed in the currently examined application would have been obvious in view of the subject matter claimed in the cited patent.
For at least the reasons set forth above, the examined application claims 2-21 would have been obvious over the reference claims 1-18 of the cited patent No. ‘582B2.
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.
Claims 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 2 recites “A computer-implemented method performed by a computer system having a memory and at least one hardware processor, the computer-implemented method comprising: determining a first location of a first mobile device of a first user based on global positioning information corresponding to the first mobile device; determining that a second user will be leaving a second location within a period of time; and causing a navigation option to be displayed on the first mobile device based on determining that the second user will be leaving the second location within the period of time.”
The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories of invention since the claim is directed to a computer-implemented method with two steps, therefore, is directed to a process which is a statutory category of invention.
However, the claim is not eligible for the following reasons: the claim recites a judicial exception and that the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim does not include any additional element or a combination of elements that amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. In this case, the claim is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea, specifically a method of organizing human activity. The claim describes collecting information about human movement (location) and notifying or guiding a person based on that data, which is a method of organizing human activity, such as family locators or child monitoring.
The claim further recites additional elements, such as mobile device, GPS, and processor. However, these additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the relevant field. These additional elements or combination of elements in the claim other than the abstract idea per se amount to no more than: instructions to implement the idea on a computer. Viewed as a whole, these additional elements cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is ineligible.
The independent claims 12, and 21 are also ineligible for the reasons as set forth herein above.
Claim 3 is not eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process or human activity without a technical improvement to a technical field.
Claim 4 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process or mathematical algorithm.
Claim 5 recites “the navigation option comprises the first user riding with the second user to a third location.” The claim is directed to an abstract idea of human activity such as carpooling.
Claim 6 recites “the navigation option is displayed in a list of navigation options on the first mobile device.” The claim is directed to an abstract idea of organizing human activity such as organizing information or collecting data that could be performed manually without a specific technical improvement.
Claim 7 is directed to a process of determining a location, comparing it to a previous location, and updating a display based on that comparison, which is considered a mental process or a method of organizing human activity.
Claim 8 is directed to a mental process or a method of organizing human activity. The claim appears to apply a well-known concept of tracking moving and updating a display. The claim does not include additional elements that can transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application.
Claim 9 describes a process of checking a calendar to determine location and displaying navigation is an abstract idea of a mental process or a method of organizing human activity, such as checking a notebook and asking for directions.
Claim 10 describes a process of determining a commonly visited location based on user history and displaying a navigation option which is an abstract idea of analyzing data and providing information.
Claim 11 recites a concept of determining a user is away from a home location, and displaying a navigation option to that home location. The claim is directed to abstract idea of organizing human activity without providing a significant technological improvement.
Claims 13-20 are also ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 2, 12, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jana et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Jana”) (US 2003/0096621 A1) and in view of Kim (US 2013/0050244 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 12, and 21, Jana discloses a system, method, and a computer product for tracking movement of a plurality of mobile users across a wireless network, comprising: a mobile device, such as the mobile device (105), shown in figure 2, wherein the mobile device (105) determines its location using the location sensors (270) such as GPS and cellular position triangulation sensor (see paragraph 0055; Fig. 2); tracking movement characteristics of a number of mobile devices (105) (see Fig. 1A) based on its location and time stamp, by the server (135) (see at least paragraphs 0049, 0055, 0076, and 0077).
Jana is merely missing to disclose the features of “causing a navigation option to be displayed on the first mobile device based on determining that the second user will be leaving the second location within the period of time.”
Kim discloses a location tracking system in which a main terminal device (10) is provided to wirelessly communicate with each of the sub-terminal (20) (see at least paragraph 0041, and 0042), wherein one sub-terminal (20) deviates from a boundary of a preset distance range, the sub-terminal deviating is immediately displayed on the main terminal and to output a warning sound (see at least paragraph 0016, and 0033).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, method, and product as taught by Jana with the teachings as taught by Kim to arrive at the claimed invention. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of instantly alerting a user when a mobile device moves beyond a designated boundary.
Claims 3-5, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jana (US 2003/0096621 A1), Kim (US 2013/0050244 A1), and further in view of Jayanthi (US 2009/0233629 A1).
Regarding claims 3, 4, and 13, the combination of Jana and Kim does not disclose or even suggest: “determining the second location based on information received from a social network,” “determining the second location based on global positioning information corresponding to a second mobile device of the second user”.
Jayanthi discloses a system and a method of communicating between a first mobile device and a plurality of second mobile devices in which “determining the locations of the user (second location/first location) is based on the information received from a social network and the global positioning information corresponding to the second mobile device (see paragraph 0022, the location information is communicated to a mobile social networking server 189 wherein then presents a map viewing service that displays where the users are located, based on the data received; the second mobile device 161 uses client software 163 to communicate its "current location information" to a server, and this location is determined based on navigational information, such as GPS coordinates, received from the mobile devices).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jana and Kim with the teachings as taught by Jayanthi to arrive at the claimed invention. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of creating map service that can help users to find nearby friends, meet up, or monitor movements of others in a social context.
Regarding claims 5 and 14, in Jayanthi, the first user with the first mobile device can share its location with the second user with the second mobile device (see at least paragraphs 0022, 0028, and 0029).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jana and Kim with the teachings as taught by Jayanthi to arrive at the claimed invention. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of navigating both users from different staring point to a third location.
Claims 6, 9, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jana (US 2003/0096621 A1), Kim (US 2013/0050244 A1), and further in view of Marchioro, II et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Marchioro”) (US 2010/0205242 A1).
Regarding claims 6, and 15, the combination of Jana and Kim does not disclose or even suggest: “The navigation option is displayed in a list of navigation options on the first mobile devices.”
Marchioro discloses a system for providing friend location to a client device, in which the user interface of the client device (104) (see paragraphs 0087-0091) displays a list of navigation options for selecting.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jana and Kim with the teachings as taught by Marchioro to arrive at the claimed invention. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of selecting one action from a plurality of available actions based on the displayed information.
Regarding claims 9, and 18, Marchioro describes a system that displays detailed information about a selected friend, including navigation options (e.g., a map of the friend's location and points of interest nearby) and the friend's current status (e.g., "headed to the KU game") (see paragraph 0091).
Claims 10, 11, 19, and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jana (US 2003/0096621 A1), Kim (US 2013/0050244 A1), and further in view of Miura et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Miura”) (US 2011/0060493 A1).
Neither Jana nor Kim discloses or even suggests the limitations of “determining a commonly visited location for the first user based on navigation history of the first user indicating that the first user travels to the commonly visited location on a repeating basis; and causing display of a second navigation option to the commonly visited location,” and “determining that the first user is away from a home location; and causing display of a second navigation option to the home location.”
Miura discloses a navigation device, a navigation method, and a computer product in which a destination or a travel route is determined based on a past travel history (see at least paragraph 0058).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jana and Kim with the teachings as taught by Miura to arrive at the claimed invention. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of identifying potential destinations and routes by guessing where the user is going, even without an active, user-inputted destination.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant disclosure. The following patent documents are cited in the PTO-892 to further show the state of the art in general: EP-1071228-A1 by Thomas which discloses an antenna network system; WO-2010075877-A1 by Hixson which discloses a navigation device and method of determining a location of the navigation device.
None of the references has been found discloses or even suggests the limitations of claims 7, 8, 16, and 17.
Conclusions
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tuan C To whose telephone number is (571) 272-6985. The examiner can normally be reached on from 6:00AM to 2:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Ramya P. Burgess, can be reached on (571) 272-6011.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/TUAN C TO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights