Ex Parte VanderhulstDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 25, 201814915349 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/915,349 02/29/2016 48116 7590 FAY SHARPE/NOKIA 1228 Euclid Avenue, 5th Floor The Halle Building Cleveland, OH 44115-1843 09/27/2018 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Geert Vanderhulst UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www .uspto.gov ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. LUTZ 202104US01 8756 EXAMINER VU, QUOC THAI NGOC ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2642 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/27/2018 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): docketing@faysharpe.com Nokia.IPR@nokia.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte GEERT VANDERHULST Appeal2018-004129 Application 14/915,349 1 Technology Center 2600 Before MARC S. HOFF, STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, and JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges. HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1-13. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appellants' invention is a method and platform for sending a message to a communication device associated with a moving object. A first location trajectory of an object is obtained by a first party. Said first trajectory is sent to a second party, who then obtains a set of second location trajectories of tracked communication devices. The second party then compares the first 1 The real party in interest is Alcatel Lucent. Appeal2018-004129 Application 14/915,349 location trajectory with the set of second location trajectories. The second party then selects a location trajectory from the set that is substantially the same as the first location trajectory. Said message is then sent by the second party to the communication device. See Abstract. Claim 1 is reproduced below: 1. A method for sending a message to a communication device associated with a moving object, the method comprising: receiving, from a first party, a first location trajectory of said moving object by a second party; obtaining a set of second location trajectories of tracked communication devices by said second party; comparing said first location trajectory with location trajectories from said set by said second party; by said second party, selecting a selected location trajectory of a selected communication device from said set if said selected location trajectory is substantially the same as said first location trajectory, said selected communication device corresponding to said communication device; and sending said message to said selected communication device by said second party. The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the claims on appeal: Buehler et al. Titus Layson US 2004/0130620 Al US 2010/0075626 Al US 2014/0361899 Al July 8, 2004 Mar. 25, 2010 Dec. 11, 2014 Claims 1-8 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(a)(2) as being anticipated by Layson. Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Layson and Buehler. 2 Appeal2018-004129 Application 14/915,349 Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Layson, Buehler, and Titus. Claims 12 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Layson and Titus. Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed Oct. 23, 2017), the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Mar. 9, 2018), and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed Jan. 9, 2018) for their respective details. ISSUE Does Layson disclose selecting a selected location trajectory of a selected communication device from said set if said selected location trajectory is substantially the same as said first location trajectory? ANALYSIS CLAIMS 1-8 AND 11 Concerning independent claim 1, Appellants argue that Layson does not teach "selecting a selected location trajectory of a selected communication device from said set if said selected location trajectory is substantially the same as said first location trajectory." App. Br. 4--5. Appellants contend that Layson's device performs "historical tracking of known users," whereas Appellants' Specification discloses as an advantage that "identification of the moving object is done without personal information of the user." App. Br. 5; Spec. ,r 8. According to Appellants, in Layson, it is a necessary condition that "the identity of the subscriber and offender are already known," which is in "direct contrast" with the claimed invention. App. Br. 5. 3 Appeal2018-004129 Application 14/915,349 Appellants' arguments are not persuasive to establish that the Examiner's rejection is erroneous. Independent claim 1 contains no requirement that identification of the moving object is done without personal information of the user, and no prohibition on the identity of the subscriber and/or offender being known. Appellants' arguments are therefore not germane to the claimed invention. We agree with the Examiner's finding that Layson teaches that "[ m ]ovement history will ... be examined to determine if the supervised released criminal offender 5 movement follows or parallels the movement history of the subscriber 6." Final Act. 6-7; Layson ,r 93. We further agree with the Examiner's finding that Layson teaches that "[ n ]otifications will be sent to the subscriber 6 with offender 5 geospatial location, including data and time, and demographic data." Layson ,r 95. We find that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-8 and 11 as being anticipated by Layson. We sustain the§ 102(a)(2) rejection. CLAIM9 Appellants argue only that Buehler does not remedy the deficiencies of Layson. App. Br. 6. As we find supra that no such deficiencies are present, we sustain the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejection of claim 9 over Layson and Buehler for the reasons expressed with respect to the§ 102(a)(2) rejection of claim 1. CLAIMS 10, 12, AND 13 In contesting the§ 103(a) rejection of independent claim 10, Appellants refer to the arguments made with respect to claims 1 and 11. App. Br. 7. As discussed supra, we are not persuaded of Examiner error by 4 Appeal2018-004129 Application 14/915,349 those arguments. Accordingly, we sustain the § 103 rejection of claim 10 over Layson, Buehler, and Titus, for the reasons given with respect to claim 1, supra. Claims 12 and 13 depend from claim 2, which itself depends from independent claim 1. Appellants argue only that Titus does not cure the deficiencies of Layson. App. Br. 7. As we find supra that no such deficiencies are present, we sustain the Examiner's§ 103 rejection of claims 12 and 13 over Layson and Titus for the reasons expressed with respect to the§ 102(a)(2) rejection of claim 1. CONCLUSION Layson discloses selecting a selected location trajectory of a selected communication device from said set if said selected location trajectory is substantially the same as said first location trajectory. ORDER The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-13 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.50(f). AFFIRMED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation