Patent Application 17986128 - LOCATION NOTIFICATION SYSTEM AND METHOD

Title: LOCATION NOTIFICATION SYSTEM AND METHOD

Application Information

Invention Title: LOCATION NOTIFICATION SYSTEM AND METHOD
Application Number: 17986128
Submission Date: 2025-04-09T00:00:00.000Z
Effective Filing Date: 2022-11-14T00:00:00.000Z
Filing Date: 2022-11-14T00:00:00.000Z
National Class: 455
National Sub-Class: 456300
Examiner Employee Number: 100809
Art Unit: 2644
Tech Center: 2600

Rejection Summary

102 Rejections: 1
103 Rejections: 7

Cited Patents

The following patents were cited in the rejection:

Office Action Text

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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS dated 02/13/2024 has been considered and placed in the application file.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 7 is subject to objection for the use of the abbreviation “GPS”. The term was not previously spelled out. (i.e., should read “Global Positioning System (GPS)”). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 8 is subject to objection for the use of the abbreviation “WiFi”. The term was not previously spelled out. (i.e., should read “Wireless Fidelity (WiFi)”). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 11 is subject to objection for the use of the abbreviation “LED”. The term was not previously spelled out. (i.e., should read “Light Emitting Diode (LED)”). Appropriate correction is required.
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 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on
sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.

Claims 1, 3, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Dobson (US Patent 20060035205).
Consider claim 1, Dobson discloses a system for tracking whether people are present in a predetermined region comprising: at least one tracking board, the tracking board (Fig. 5, paragraph 0033 read as a handheld computing device and paragraph 0042, further disclosing the tracking board may also take any form including a desktop), comprising:
at least one identity indicator to indicate the identity of the person being tracked (Fig. 6a, paragraphs 0033, 0034, read as a handheld computing device, where there is a provisional attendance report, indicating a list of the students' name); and at least one presence indicator to indicate whether the person being tracked is present in the region (paragraph 0034, read as a provisional attendance report, and a status symbol by each name indicating whether that student is present, tardy, or absent);
and at least one transponder, said at least one transponder being tracked for its location (paragraph 0049, read as a Tag (10), disclosing that the tag enters the system and scanned data is then compared and the system determines if the student is present.).
Consider claim 3 and as applied to claim 1, Dobson discloses said tracking board further comprising at least one microprocessor (Paragraph 0030 and 0043, read as a handheld computing device, wherein the microprocessor is used to process the “raw attendance data”).
Consider claim 6 and as applied to claim 1, Dobson discloses the region is a geolocation, (read as a location or classroom, Fig. 3, paragraph 0053. Wherein the geolocation is used to know the location of individuals, or the time when they entered or exited a particular area).

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.

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 2 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dobson (US Patent 20060035205, hereinafter Dobson) in view of Hilo (Title page; Pg. 1).
Consider claim 2 as applied to claim 1. Dobson discloses the claimed invention but fails to teach wherein the tracking board further comprises at least one mirror.
However, Hilo teaches a tracking board further comprising at least one mirror (read as a smart mirror Pg. 1, left paragraph).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Hilo into the invention of Dobson in order to provide a user-friendly means for keeping the user connected in different locations.

Claims 4, 5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dobson (US PGPUB 2006/0035205, hereinafter Dobson) in view of EZ Automation (Title page, Pg. 1, #1 U.S. Supplier).
Consider claim 4 as applied to claim 1. Dobson discloses the claimed invention but fails to disclose at least one presence indicator comprises a light.
However, EZ Automation teaches at least one presence indicator comprising a light (Pg. 1, #1 U.S. Supplier, read as light indicators).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the system of Dobson with a presence indicator comprising a light as taught by EZ Automation in order to make a presence visibly known, thereby improving productivity.
Consider claim 5 as applied to claim 1. Dobson discloses the claimed invention but fails to teach a presence indicator comprising of at least one red light to signify that the person being tracked is outside of the predetermined region and at least one green light to indicate that the person being tracked is within the region.
However, EZ Automation teaches a presence indicator comprising of at least one red light to signify that the person being tracked is outside of the predetermined region and at least one green light to indicate that the person being tracked is within the region (Pg. 1, U.S. Supplier, read as red or tri-color indicators or red and green light indicators).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to incorporate the teachings of EZ Automation into the invention of Dobson in order to clearly indicate between a person being tracked within and outside a region (or area), thereby improving productivity.
Consider claim 11 as applied to claim 4. Dobson discloses the claimed invention but fails to teach a light being an LED light.
However, EZ Automation teaches wherein the light is an LED light (Pg. 1, #1 U.S. Supplier, read as an LED light;).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to incorporate the teachings of EZ Automation into the invention of Dobson with an LED light in order to display important messages and improving productivity.

Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dobson (US PGPUB 2006/0035205, hereinafter Dobson) in view of Amann (US PGPUB 2017/0041452, hereinafter Amann).
Consider claim 7 as applied to claim 1. Dobson discloses the claimed invention but fails to teach the region being defined by GPS coordinates.
However, Amann teaches the region being defined by GPS coordinates (Paragraph 0087, read as GPS coordinates from the GPS sensor).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to incorporate the teachings of Amann into the invention of Dobson in order to utilizes GPS coordinates to accurately determine locations and track users.
Consider claim 8 as applied to claim 1. Dobson discloses the claimed invention but fails to disclose wherein the region being defined by a connection to a WiFi Signal (a connection is made using a WiFi standard, paragraph 0077).
However, Amann teaches wherein a region being defined by a connection to a WiFi signal (Paragraph 0077, read as Wi-Fi standard).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to incorporate the teachings of Amann into the invention of Dobson in order to accurately determine location and track users, using a WiFi signal.

Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dobson (US PGPUB 2006/0035205, hereinafter Dobson) in view of McCracken et al. (US PGPUB 2020/0383172, hereinafter McCracken).
Consider claim 9 as applied to claim 1. Dobson discloses the claimed invention but fails to teach a region being defined by a connection to a nearfield transponder.
However, McCracken teaches wherein a region being defined by a connection to a nearfield transponder (Paragraph 0254 and 0255, read as an NFC assignment Tag).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to incorporate the teachings of McCracken into the invention of Dobson in order to provide a convenient means for programming information and specific areas/locations into the tag.

Claims 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dobson (US PGPUB 2006/0035205, hereinafter Dobson) in view of Wessels (US PGPUB 2013/0318469, hereinafter Wessels).
Consider claim 10 as applied to claim 1. Dobson discloses the claimed invention but fails to teach a presence indicator further comprises an audible indicator.
However, Wessels teaches a presence indicator further comprises an audible indicator (Paragraph 0072, read as a notification sound).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to incorporate the teachings of Wessels into the invention of Dobson in order to effectively notify user via an audio component or a notification sound.
Consider claim 13 as applied to claim 1. Dobson discloses the claimed invention but fails to teach at least one display screen having at least one area listing the names of users, and at least one area presenting a calendar.
However, Wessels teaches further comprising at least one display screen having at least one area listing the names of users (Paragraph 0054, read as the student statistical display box that provides a list of student names), and at least one area presenting a calendar (Fig. 6, paragraph 0044 read as the control board interface that has a second box that displays a calendar).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to incorporate the teaching of Wessels into the invention of Dobson with a user-friendly display to show students their progress, thus motivating them.

Claim 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dobson (US Patent 20060035205, hereinafter Dobson) in view of Savance (Title page; Pg. 1, hereinafter Savance) and Declerck (USPGPUB 2017/0116895, hereinafter Declerck).
Consider claim 12 as applied to claim 1. Dobson discloses the claimed invention but fails to teach wherein the tracking board has at least three columns of pixels with at least one column of pixels indicating a presence of a user in a geo-spatial area, a second column of pixels indicating the time that they are supposed to be present in the area, and a third column indicating when they are not in the area.
However, Savance teaches wherein the tracking board has at least three columns of pixels with at least one column of pixels indicating a presence of a user in a geo-spatial area, a second column of pixels indicating the time that they are supposed to be present in the area, and a third column indicating when they are not in the area (Pg. 1, bottom right corner, read as an electronic In/Out board where columns for employees are displayed indicating a user’s presence, time, and presence in a geo-spatial area).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Savance into the invention of Dobson in order to keep the user connected anywhere in the house.
Dobson and Savance disclose the claimed invention but fail to teach three columns of lights (Savance teaches three columns of pixels).
However, Declerck teaches three columns of lights (Fig. 1, paragraph 0054, read as an LED board that has 3 columns and 3 rows).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Declerck into the invention of Dobson and Savance in order to avoid visual artifacts.

Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dobson (US PGPUB 2006/0035205, hereinafter Dobson) in view of Wessels (US PGPUB 2013/0318469, hereinafter Wessels) in view of Klinkner (US PGPUB 10462611, hereinafter Klinkner).
Consider claim 14 as applied to claim 13. Dobson and Wessels disclose the claimed invention but fails to teach sending a signal to a lock to lock a lock when at least one user is detected inside of a geofence location.
However, Klinkner teaches sending a signal to a lock to lock a lock when at least one user is detected inside of a geofence location (Col. 36, lines 5 – 13, Col. 39, lines 63 – Col. 40, line 2, read as when a user crosses a geographic boundary around their school, the attendance system locks the user's locker).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to incorporate the teachings of Klinkner into the invention of Dobson and Wessels with a tracking system in order to automatically ensure users in the system are safe.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUAI'VON VONTAE MALLISHAM whose telephone number is (571) 272-5860. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Richemond Dorvil can be reached on (571)272-7602. 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.

/QUAI'VON V. MALLISHAM/Examiner, Art Unit 4167
/CHRISTOPHER M BRANDT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645 April 3, 2025