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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner has thoroughly reviewed applicant’s arguments but firmly believes the cited reference to reasonably and properly meet the claimed limitations. Examiner respectfully direct the Application to paragraphs 28-31, 37, fig. 2-5, MacNiven where discloses that a profile matching request is received by the profile module 104 (server) over the network 108 from the requesting user's computing device 110 or from another service of the digital networking augmentation server 102, such as from the introduction module 106. The profile matching module 104 then processes the received request to identify one or more other user profiles matching parameters of the received request. Profile data considered by the profile matching module 104 may include user profile data stored by the digital networking augmentation server 102, data stored within third-party user profile databases 120, and other public and private data sources. The output of the profile matching service, may include one of more profile identifiers of each matched profile, further data may be provided, such as one or more of profile identifiers, names, location data, images, and other profile data, when the listing is transmitted and presented to the requesting user, the data of the profile matched users may be selected to view further profile data. Other representations of profile matched users may also be provided in the reply from the introduction module 106 to the requesting user, such as graphs indicating matching relevance of each profile matched user, images of each profile matched user, among other possible representations. The user may then select a user interface control to request an introduction (not know each other or anonymity) to one or more particular other users represented in the view. Such a selection, causes an introduction request to be transmitted over the network 108 to the introduction module 106. The introduction module 106, upon receipt of the introduction request, transmits a form of the introduction request to each of one or more particular other uses identified in the introduction request. The introduction request may be sent to each of the other users via an in-app message of a mobile computing device 110 app of each of the other users. In other embodiments, the introduction request may be presented within a web browser-based app of each of the other users. In yet further embodiments, the introduction request may be sent via SMS text message, a text-based chat message, a voice message via an automated telephone call, among other possibilities depending on the particular embodiment and utilize location-based services provided on mobile computing devices 110 of users. Such location-based services may include Global Positioning System (GPS) sensors of mobile computing devices 110. The user interface 202 includes a map showing a current location of the user. The user interface 202 further includes profile matching options, each of which can be selected to request introduction proposals. When an introduction proposal option is selected, an introduction proposal request is sent and a response is received with data representative of one or more other users for whom introductions are proposed. The received data may include a map and location data with regard to each of the one or more other users. Such a map is illustrated within the user interface 204 with locations of the one or more other users plotted thereon.
In paragraphs 006, 057, fig. 1-14, Ursitti et al discloses in more detail, User A's and User B's mobile devices 110 and 112 send the initial location information or data to the server 116. At this point, the location information of each device (i.e., the latitude and longitude) is communicated to the server 116, at which time an initial distance D1 between User A's device 110 and User B's device 112 is determined (step 234) either by the API 125 or map module. The location information is communicated to the API 125, which in turn communicates arrival data or proximity details to each of User A's and User B's devices 110 and 112. The arrival data is based on speed, distance and direction between the users. It should be understood that the API used, such as the Google Maps API, has the capability to make the arrival data determination. For example, the Google Maps API has the algorithms and logic included for determining estimate time of arrival for travel by car, train, walking and bike. Generally, the location information of the two data points is transmitted to the API and the proximity details (e.g. estimated time of arrival) on each mobile device will be updated based on the calculations made by the API. This is done at every interval the location information is transmitted. Accordingly, a detailed explanation will be omitted. In short, at step 236, location information is then shared between the first and second user mobile devices and proximity details 150 are established and communicated to both mobile devices 150 and displayed thereon.
Additionally, the examiner has given the claim language its broadest reasonable interpretation. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Applicant always has the opportunity to amend the claims during prosecution, and broad interpreted by the examiner reduces the possibility that the claim, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969).
In response to applicant's argument that there is no suggestion to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness can only be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988)and In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Examiner’s Note: The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply. "The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain." In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275,277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments (see MPEP 2123). Therefore, Applicant, in preparing the response, must fully consider the entire disclosure of the cited references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, including the context of the cited passages as taught by the prior art disclosed by the Examiner.
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 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 59-89 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 59-89 of copending Application No. 19/255,998. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the claimed limitations recited in the present application are transparently found in the copending application 19/255,998 with obvious wording variations. Take an example of comparing claim 59 of pending application and claim 59 of copending application 19/255,998:
Further, the instant claims obviously encompass the claimed invention of copending application 19/255,998 and differ only in terminology. To the extent that the instant claims are broaden and therefore generic to the claimed invention of copending application 19/255,998, in re Goodman 29 USPQ 2d 2010 CAFC 1993, states that a generic claim cannot be issued without a terminal disclaimer, if a species claim has been previously been claimed in a pending application. Nonetheless, the removal of said limitations from claim 59 of the present application made claim 59 a broader version of claim 59. Therefore, since omission of an element and its function in combination is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before (In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184 (1963)), claim 59 is not patentably distinct from claim 59.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 59-66 and 77-89 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MacNiven (20140280532) view of Ursitti et al (20190208398).
Regarding claims 59, 88 and 89 MacNiven discloses, a method of facilitating proximity-based communication (abstract, fig. 1-5), the method including:
establishing, by a server (102, fig. 1), proximity-based communication between a first mobile computing device and a mobile second computing device, including by instructing the first mobile computing device to provide real-time updatable Global Positioning System( GPS, ¶ 029) received location information comprising a current location, the first mobile computing device specifically programmed to communicate with the server including via a first graphical user interface (08-09, 029), and such that communications from the server maintain user anonymity with respect to the second mobile computing device, and by instructing the second mobile computing device to provide real-time updatable Global Positioning System-received location information comprising a current location, the second mobile computing device specifically programmed to communicate with the server including via a second graphical user interface, and such that communications from the server maintain user anonymity with respect to the first mobile computing device (¶ 028-030 and 037); facilitating, by the server, an in-person meeting involving the first mobile computing device and the second mobile computing device (¶ 028-030 and 037, fig. 1-5).
MacNiven does not specifically disclose in detail, monitoring the real-time updatable Global Positioning System-received location information of the first mobile computing device for a changed current location of the first mobile computing device, whereby the changed current location of the first mobile computing device is automatically included in an update of the graphical user interface of the second mobile computing device, and monitoring the real-time updatable Global Positioning System-received location information of the second mobile computing device for a changed current location of the second mobile computing device, whereby the changed current location of the second mobile computing device is automatically.
In the same field of endeavor, Ursitti et al discloses in more detail, monitoring the real-time updatable Global Positioning System-received location information of the first mobile computing device for a changed current location of the first mobile computing device, whereby the changed current location of the first mobile computing device is automatically included in an update of the graphical user interface of the second mobile computing device, and monitoring the real-time updatable Global Positioning System-received location 10information of the second mobile computing device for a changed current location of the second mobile computing device, whereby the changed current location of the second mobile computing device is automatically (¶ 006, 057, fig. 1-14). Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the device of MacNiven by specifically adding feature in order to enhance system performance to The software application automatically alerts second user of first user's distance from final destination and from which direction the second user is arriving as soon the invitation is accepted as taught by Ursitti et al.
Regarding claims 60-62, MacNiven and Ursitti et al disclose in claim 59, further MacNiven discloses, further including updating the first graphical user interface, including associating at least one of an annotation and an overlay with a map to allow rendering a visual presentation showing the changed current location of the first mobile computing device and the changed current location of the second mobile computing device in association with the map (¶ 028-030 and 037, fig. 1-5, and Ursitti et al ¶ 006, 015, 057, 062, fig. 1-14, overlap).
Regarding claims 62-64, MacNiven and Ursitti et al disclose in claim 59, further Ursitti et al discloses, wherein the directions sent to the second mobile computing device include walking directions (Ursitti et al ¶ 006, 015, 057, 062, fig. 1-14, travel by walking).
Regarding claims 65-67, MacNiven and Ursitti et al disclose in claim 59, further Ursitti et al disclose, wherein the server executes operations including: associating a communication, received from a location in a restaurant, with the meeting, and in response thereto, communicating to the graphical user interface of the first mobile computing device to carry out the meeting so as to include a delivery (Ursitti et al ¶ 003, 006, 015, 057, fig. 1-14).
Regarding claims 77-82, MacNiven and Ursitti et al disclose in claim 59, further MacNiven disclose, wherein the first graphical user interface, the second graphical user interface, or both is configured to display an activatable toggle or icon to turn external monitoring on/off, the external monitoring including recording at the mobile computing device during the meeting (¶ 028-030, 038, icon).
Regarding claims 83, MacNiven and Ursitti et al disclose in claim 59, further Ursitti et al disclose, further including dynamically adjusting, in real-time, the graphical user interface of the mobile computing device, the dynamically adjusting based at least in part on proximity of the first mobile computing device to the second mobile computing device (006, real-time, dynamically updated proximity detail data, wherein the proximity detail data is viewable on the recipient device and the source device).
Claim(s) 69-76 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MacNiven (20140280532) view of Ursitti et al (20190208398) and Warden et al (20230316321).
Regarding claims 69-76, MacNiven and Ursitti et al disclose in claim 59, further Ursitti et al and MacNiven do not specifically disclose in detail, associating a traffic overlay with a map.
In the same field of endeavor, Warden et al discloses in more detail, associating a traffic overlay with a map (¶ 088-089, a traffic overlay as is conventionally seem on graphical maps, such as in a web browser or on a personal navigation device. Areas on the map may be shaded in red, orange, yellow, or green to indicate varying degrees of GD points awarded at particular locations/areas on the map. Red areas may indicate least GD points per vehicle while green represents the most. A user may view the overlay when requesting route directions from a navigation device 169 or other device). Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the device of MacNiven and MacNiven by specifically adding feature in order to enhance system performance to the system performs enhanced optimization of the monitoring of driver-defined combinations of characteristics that permits reduced processing load and sensor utilization as taught by Warden et al.
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHAWAR IQBAL whose telephone number is (571)272-7909. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Jinsong Hu can be reached at 5712723965. 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.
/KHAWAR IQBAL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2643