Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 103-4 Filed 04/18/22 Page 1 of 30
`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 103-4 Filed 04/18/22 Page 1 of 30
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 3
`EXHIBIT 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 103-4 Filed 04/18/22 Page 2 of 30
`ese >heyOf053-BLF
`cument 103-4 Filed 04/18/22 Page 2 of 30
`NITED STATES FATENT ANDIRADEMARK UFFICE
`
`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
`
`
`
`90/014,889
`
`10/22/2021
`
`7630724
`
`4733 1.00004
`
`9508
`
`Malin Haley DiMaggio & Bowen,P.A.
`Spectrum Office Building
`4901 NW 17th Way, Suite 308
`FORT LAUDERDALE,FL 33309
`
`REICHLE, KARIN M
`
`3992
`
`MAIL DATE
`
`12/07/2021
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`PAPER
`
`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.
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 103-4 Filed 04/18/22 Page 3 of 30
`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 103-4 Filed 04/18/22 Page 3 of 30
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Commissionerfor Patents
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`DO NOT USE IN PALM PRINTER
`
`(THIRD PARTY REQUESTER'S CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS)
`
`Paul Hastings, LLP
`2050 M Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20036
`
`EX PARTE REEXAMINATION COMMUNICATION TRANSMITTAL FORM
`
`REEXAMINATION CONTROL NO. 90/074,889 .
`
`PATENT UNDER REEXAMINATION 7630724 .
`
`ART UNIT 3992.
`
`Enclosed is a copy of the latest communication from the United States Patent and Trademark
`Office in the aboveidentified exparte reexamination proceeding (87 CFR 1.550(f)).
`
`Wherethis copy is supplied after the reply by requester, 37 CFR 1.535, or the timefor filing a
`reply has passed, no submission on behalf of the evparfe reexamination requester will be
`acknowledged or considered (37 CFR 1.550(g)).
`
`PTOL-465 (Rev.07-04)
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 103-4 Filed 04/18/22 Page 4 of 30
`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 103-4 Filed 04/18/22 Page 4 of 30
`
`Control No.
`
`Patent Under Reexamination
`
`.
`Order Granting Request For
`Ex Parte Reexamination Art Unit|AIA (FITF) StatusExaminer
`
`
`Karin M Reichle
`3992
`No
`
`90/014,889
`
`7630724
`
`
`
`--The MAILING DATEof this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address--
`
`The request for exgarfe reexamination filed 10/22/2021 has been considered and a determination has
`been made. An identification of the claims, the references relied upon, and the rationale supporting the
`determination are attached.
`
`Attachments: a)
`
`PTO-892,
`
`b)v¥)
`
`PTO/SB/08,
`
`c)Q Other:
`
`1.
`
`The requestfor exgarfe reexamination is GRANTED.
`
`RESPONSE TIMES ARE SET AS FOLLOWS:
`
`For Patent Owner's Statement (Optional): TWO MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication
`(37 CFR 1.530 (b)). EXTENSIONS OF TIME ARE GOVERNED BY37 CFR 1.550(c).
`
`For Requester's Reply (optional): TWO MONTHS from the date of service of any timely filed
`Patent Owner's Statement (87 CFR 1.535). NO EXTENSION OF THIS TIME PERIOD IS PERMITTED.
`lf Patent Owner does notfile a timely statement under 37 CFR 1.530(b), then no reply by requester
`is permitted.
`
`Karin Reichle/
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
`
`J.W/
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
`
`cc:Requester ( if third party requester }
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL-471G(Rev. 01-13)
`
`Office Action in Ex Parte Reexamination
`
`Part of Paper No. 20211116
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 103-4 Filed 04/18/22 Page 5 of 30
`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 103-4 Filed 04/18/22 Page 5 of 30
`
`Application/Control Number: 90/014,889
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 2
`
`DECISION ON REQUEST FOR EX PARTE REEXAMINATION
`
`Third Party Requester (TPR) submitted a request for reexamination of claims 9-10 and
`
`12-16 of US Patent No. 7,630,724 (hereinafter also referred to as ‘724 or BeyerJr. et al 543) on
`
`October 22, 2021. A substantial new question of patentability affecting claims 9-10 and 12-16 of
`
`‘724 is raised by the request for ex parte reexamination. Accordingly, claims 9-10 and 12-16 will
`
`be reexamined.
`
`Extensions of Time
`
`Extensions of time under 37 CFR 1.136(a) will not be permitted in these proceedings
`
`because the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136 apply only to “an applicant” and notto parties in a
`
`reexamination proceeding. Additionally, 35 U.S.C. 305 requires that reexamination proceedings
`
`“will be conducted with special dispatch” (37 CFR 1.550(a)). Extension of time in ex parte
`
`reexamination proceedings are provided for in 37 CFR 1.550(c).
`
`Notification of Concurrent Proceedings
`
`The patent owneris reminded of the continuing responsibility under 37 CFR 1.565(a), to
`
`apprise the Office of anylitigation activity, or other prior or concurrent proceeding, involving
`
`US Patent No. 7,630,724 throughout the course of this reexamination proceeding. See MPEP §§
`
`2207, 2282 and 2286.
`
`Amendment in Reexamination Proceedings
`
`Patent owneris notified that any proposed amendmentto the specification and/or claims
`
`in this reexamination proceeding must comply with 37 CFR 1.530(d)-(j), must be formally
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 103-4 Filed 04/18/22 Page 6 of 30
`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 103-4 Filed 04/18/22 Page 6 of 30
`
`Application/Control Number: 90/014,889
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 3
`
`presented pursuant to 37 CFR 1.52(a) and (b), and must contain any fees required by 37 CFR
`
`1.20(c).
`
`Submissions
`
`In orderto insure full consideration of any amendments, affidavits or declarations or
`
`other documents as evidence of patentability, such documents must be submitted in response to
`
`the first Office action on the merits (which does notresult in a close of prosecution).
`
`Submissionsafter the second Office action on the merits, which is intended to be a final action,
`
`will be governed by the requirements of 37 CFR 1.116, after final rejection and by 37 CFR 41.33
`
`after appeal, which will be strictly enforced.
`
`Waiverof Right to File Patent Owner Statement
`
`In a reexamination proceeding, Patent Owner may waivethe right under 37 C.F.R. 1.530
`
`to file a Patent Owner Statement. The documentneeds to contain a statement that Patent Owner
`
`waives the right under 37 C.F.R. 1.530 to file a Patent Owner Statement and proofof service in
`
`the mannerprovided by 37 C.F.R. 1.248, if the request for reexamination was made bya third
`
`party requester, see 37 C.F.R 1.550(f.
`
`Patent Ownerdid not waive the right under 37 C.F.R. 1.530 to file a Patent Owner
`
`Statement, see Interview Summary issued November 15, 2021 of record.
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 103-4 Filed 04/18/22 Page 7 of 30
`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 103-4 Filed 04/18/22 Page 7 of 30
`
`Application/Control Number: 90/014,889
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 4
`
`Service of Papers
`
`After filing of a request for ex parte reexamination bya third party requester, any
`
`documentfiled by either the patent ownerorthe third party requester must be served on the other
`
`party (or parties where two or more third party requester proceedings are merged)in the
`
`reexamination proceeding in the manner provided in 37 CFR 1.248. The document mustreflect
`
`service or the document may be refused consideration by the Office. See 37 CFR 1.550(f).
`
`References Asserted as Raising a Substantial New Question (SN
`
`(1) U.S. Patent. No. 6,366,782 (hereinafter also referred to as Fumarolo or ‘ 782 (Exhibit
`
`PA-1)), filed on October 8, 1999, and issued on April 2, 2002.
`
`(2) U.S. Patent App. Publication No. 2004/0054428 (hereinafter also referred to as Sheha
`‘428 or ‘428 (Exhibit PA-2)), filed on March 3, 2003!, and published on March 18, 2004.
`
`(3) U.S. Patent App. Publication No. 2005/0221876 (hereinafter also referred to as Van
`Boschor “876 (Exhibit PA-3)), filed on April 5, 2004, and published on October 6, 2005.
`
`(4) U.S. Patent App. Publication No. 2004/0157590(hereinafter also referred to as
`Lazaridis or “590 (Exhibit PA-4)), filed on October 31, 2003, and published on August 12, 2004.
`
`(5) U.S. Patent App. Publication No. 2005/0228860 (hereinafter also referred to as
`Hamynenor ‘860 (Exhibit PA-5)), filed on April 12, 2004, and published on October 13, 2005.
`
`(6) U.S. Patent No. 6,356,838 (hereinafter also referred to as Paul or ‘838 (Exhibit PA-
`6)), filed on July 25, 2000, and issued on March 12, 2002.
`
`(7) U.S. Patent No. 7,565,155 (hereinafter also referred to as Sheha ‘155 or ‘155 (Exhibit
`PA-7)), filed on April 7, 20057, and issued on July 21, 2009.
`
`' The application claims benefit of 60/360,737 filed on March 1, 2002.
`2 The application claims benefit of 60/371,941 filed on April 10, 2002.
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 103-4 Filed 04/18/22 Page 8 of 30
`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 103-4 Filed 04/18/22 Page 8 of 30
`
`Application/Control Number: 90/014,889
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Other
`
`Page 5
`
`The Declaration of Dr. Sandeep Chatterjee (Exhibit PA-DEC), signed October 21, 2021
`
`and filed October 22, 2021, and accompanying Exhibits PA-8-PA-16° and Exhibit B-DEC.
`
`All of the references and declaration and accompanying exhibits identified above and the
`
`Request have been reviewed and considered.
`
`Proposed Groundsof Rejection of claims 9-10 and 12-16 of US Patent No. 7, 630,724 to
`
`Beyer
`
`Jr. et al
`
`1) Claims 9, 12, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. {103 as are obvious over
`
`Fumarolo in view of Sheha ‘428 and Lazaridis.
`
`2) Claims 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. {103 as being unpatentable Fumarolo
`
`in view of Sheha ‘428, Lazaridis, and Van Bosch.
`
`3) Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. {103 as being unpatentable over obvious over
`
`Fumarolo in view of Sheha ‘428, Lazaridis, and Hamynen.
`
`4) Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. J103 as being unpatentable over Fumarolo in
`
`view of Sheha ‘428, Lazaridis, Van Bosch, and Paul.
`
`5) Claims 9, 12, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 7103 as being unpatentable
`
`over Fumarolo in view of Sheha ‘428, Lazaridis, and Sheha ‘155.
`
`6) Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 7103 as being unpatentable over Fumarolo in
`
`view of Sheha ‘428, Lazaridis, Van Bosch and Sheha ‘155.
`
`3 As per page 188 ofthe Litigation Report of Record, a “CLAIM CONSTRUCTION REPORT”wassigned on
`11/10/2021 in Agis Software Development Lic V. T-Mobile Usa, Inc. Et Al, 2:21-cv-00072. A copy of suchis not of
`record as of the time of this Order.
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 103-4 Filed 04/18/22 Page 9 of 30
`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 103-4 Filed 04/18/22 Page 9 of 30
`
`Application/Control Number: 90/014,889
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 6
`
`7) Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. {103 as being unpatentable over Fumarolo in
`
`view of Sheha ‘428, Lazaridis, Hamynen and Sheha ‘155.
`
`Patent Prosecution History
`
`In the instant request for reexamination, claims 9-10 and 12-16 of ‘724 issued June 2,
`
`2015 from U.S Patent Application No. 11/308,648. The patent claims correspond to renumbered
`
`application claims 18, 21, 23-26 and 19, respectively.
`
`On April 17, 2006, the ‘648 application wasfiled with original claims 1-20. Claims1, 5-
`
`7,9, 11, 13, and 17-20 were the independentclaims. Dependent claims 2-4, 8, and 10, claim 12,
`
`and claims 14-16 depended from claims 1, 11 and 23, respectively. The application claimed
`
`continuity-in-part of U.S. Application number 10/711,490 filed September 21, 2004.
`
`On September 26, 2008, the PTO issuedarestriction requirement. The action required
`
`election between claims 1-4, 8, 10 and 20 drawnto position based services, claims 5-7 drawn to
`
`channelallocation based on quality of service, claim 9 drawn to location display and claims 11-
`
`18 and 19 drawnto position based conferencing or data sharing.
`
`On October 27, 2008, Applicant filed a response electing the invention of claims 11-18
`
`and 19 for prosecution.
`
`On February 24, 2009, the PTO issued a non-final rejection withdrawing claims 1-10 and
`
`20 from further consideration and rejecting claims 11-18 and 19. Specifically, claims 11 and 12
`
`were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gorday (US 20040192331) in
`
`view of Buckhamet al. (US 6662016)*, claims 13 -16 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as
`
`4“Gorday fails to disclose generating a display that indicates a selected symbol’s velocity upon activation of a
`particular velocity switch. However, Buckham teaches generating a display that indicates a selected symbol's
`velocity upon activation of a particular velocity switch...”
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 103-4 Filed 04/18/22 Page 10 of 30
`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 103-4 Filed 04/18/22 Page 10 of 30
`
`Application/Control Number: 90/014,889
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 7
`
`being unpatentable over Gorday (US 20040192331) in view of Fumarolo (US 6204844)°, claim
`
`17 wasrejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gorday (US 20040192331) in
`
`view of Tsuge (US 20030200259”, claim 18 wasrejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
`
`unpatentable over Gorday (US 20040192331) in view of Mizuno (US 20060031927)’), and
`
`claim 19 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gorday (US
`
`20040192331) in view of Augustet al. US 200402040708.
`
`On June 10, 2009, Applicant filed a response in which claims 1-10 and 20 remained
`
`withdrawn, claims 11-19 were amended and claims 21-28 were added. Specifically, independent
`
`claim 18 was amended to include the limitation:
`
`exchanging IP addresses using SMSor other digital message format between and
`among each of the network participant users so that communications can between
`participants can then be established via IP or transmission of a network
`participant’s IP address to a server which then transmits data to other network
`participants using the IP address which they have also sent to the server.”
`
`> “Regarding claim 13,...Gorday fails to disclose automatically reporting position and status to one or more other
`participant users’ cell PDA phonesin said communication network based on a predetermined condition. Fumarolo
`discloses selectively polling position and status information from one user among all of the other users equipped
`with said cellular phonesand its associated software and automatically reporting position and status to one or more
`other participant users’ (i.e. talk group) cell PDA phonesin said communication network based on a predetermined
`condition...”, “Regarding claim 15, Fumarolo teaches predetermined condition is automatically reporting at specific
`times and/or distances traveled by the reporting user.”
`® ) “Gorday fails to disclose adding a new track symbol representing an object, person or event, fixed or mobile, to
`the geographical display by touching the geographical display at the location of the new track to be added; assigning
`a category to the newtrack to be added on the geographical display screen, said category being an object, person or
`event; selecting an appropriate category switch for identifying the new track selected; and sending to one or more of
`the other participant users of the cellular telephone network information concerning the new track including the new
`track's location and category to the other participant users. However, Tsuege teaches adding a new track symbol
`representing an object, person or event, fixed or mobile, to the geographical display by touching the geographical
`display at the location of the new track to be added ... where the user could add icon type at the corresponding
`position) and assigning a category to the newtrack to be added on the geographical display screen, said category
`being an object, person or event ... Tsuege teaches selecting an appropriate category switch for identifying the new
`track selected; and sending to one or more of the other participant users of the cellular telephone network
`information concerning the new track including the new track's location and category to the other participant users..”
`7“Gorday fails to disclose where eachof the cell phones with an internet connection capability. However Mizuno
`teaches providing each ofthe cell phones with an internet connection capability...”
`§ “However, Gorday fails to disclose providing a server for establishing high speed internet communications
`between said cellular phone network users and said server. August teaches providing a server for establishing high
`speed internet communications between said cellular phone network users and said server ..., where there is a
`cellular phone companyinternet server for establishing high speed internet.”
`° Although not shown,the following language wasalso deleted from claim 18 as originally filed:
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 103-4 Filed 04/18/22 Page 11 of 30
`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 103-4 Filed 04/18/22 Page 11 of 30
`
`Application/Control Number: 90/014,889
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 8
`
`Independentclaim 19 was also amended onlines 3-5 as follows:
`
`providing rapid voice call initiation and communication to the users of the cellular
`telephone PDA/GPSnetwork system using by touching their symbol on the
`phone’s a touch screen;!°
`
`In the June 10, 2009 remarks, Applicant argued:
`
`The following discrepancies or inaccuracies are noted in the Examiner’s
`comments with respect to Gorday:
`
`1) The Examinerstates that Gorday discloses providing rapid voice call initiation
`to users of the cell phones PDA/GPSnavigation system using a touch screen,
`Paragraph (0012) in Gorday. It is Applicant’s position that there is no voicecall
`capability mentioned in Gorday.
`
`2) The Examinerstates at the end of Page 3 that “Gorday discloses providing
`rapid transmission of free, operator selected text messages, photographs and video
`
`“performing at least one or more of the following steps:
`
`(1) exchanging automatically IP addresses using SMSorother digital message format between and amongeach of
`the participant users;
`
`(2) pushing photographsor video clips between and among eachofthe cellular telephone participant users across
`multiple cellular carriers and between smart phone and PCs;
`
`(3) providing each knownparticipant user in each of said users’ cellular phones, a cellular phone number, an IP
`address and an E-mail address in each of said participants’ databases;
`
`(4) adding an additional cell phone participant user having a similar cell phone configuration into the
`communication network of participating users by having the addedcell phoneparticipating user transmit designation
`and a cell phone numberin an initial message to other participant users for identification;
`
`(5) sending each participating user geographic notification of the location of the sender of a message;
`
`(6) calling the nearest fixed location on the map display from the participant selected from a particular group
`including a police station, fire station, or EMT orother fixed location by one of the cellular phone network
`participants; and
`
`(7) entering on a user’s touch screen display a new track including generating a symbolfor the new track and
`periodically sending data to the other participants relative to the new track so that each of the participating users’
`display is updated with newtrack’s position periodically; and
`
`(8) amplifying a moving new track symbolonauser’s touch screen display with free text, preformatted messages,
`photographsor video and periodically sending data to the other participants relative to the new track so that each of
`the participating users’ display is updated with said new track position and data periodically.”
`
`Note newly added claims 21-28.
`
`!0 The added language “by touching their symbol on the phone’s” should have been underlined.
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 103-4 Filed 04/18/22 Page 12 of 30
`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 103-4 Filed 04/18/22 Page 12 of 30
`
`Application/Control Number: 90/014,889
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 9
`
`to another cellular using touch screen” and cites Paragraph (0002) in Gorday.
`There is no mention in Gorday concerning transmission of photographsor video.
`
`3) With respect to Claim 14, the Examinerstates that Gorday in Paragraph (0014)
`covers Applicant’s claimed invention “the user has the ability to make voice
`conferencecalls and to send free text, operator select messages, photographs, and
`video to all other network participants within in a distance determined by the
`initiator of the voice call, free text, operator selected messages, photographs, and
`video”. The Gorday reference in Paragraph (0014)is clear that the basis is relative
`range and bearing from the user whichis the selection basis used in Gorday.
`Again, reference is made to voice calls and exchange of photographsand videos,
`whichare not disclosed in Gordayetal.
`
`4) The Examinerstates that “regarding Claim 16, Gorday teaches transmitting and
`alert automatically activated when one or more networkscellular phone
`participants fixed facilities or enter tracks reach a minimum predetermined
`distance from anothercellular phone user”as stated in Gorday Paragraph (0013).
`It is Applicant’s position that Gorday does not disclose fixed facilities or enter
`tracks. Although Gorday Figure 5 does cover automatic transmission of messages
`whentherelative location of units in an ad hoc network meets a criterion, Gorday
`does not discuss alerting the user when within range offixed facilities or enter
`tracks that are not part of the ad hoc network,
`
`5) The Examinerstates with respect to Claim 17 that “Gorday teaches providing
`rapid voicecall initiation from one participating cell phone user between and
`amongthe participating users of the cell phone network using a touch screen” in
`Paragraph (0012). It is Applicant’s position that Gorday makes no mention of
`voice calls but discloses manual or automatic exchange of data messages between
`user vehicles in an ad hoc network based onrelative location, namely bearing and
`range. Further, Gorday makes no mention of a voice call switch....
`
`6) The Examinerstates with respect to Claim 18 that “Gorday teaches providing a
`database in each cell phonethat includes a geographical map of a predetermined
`area...” in Paragraph (0013). It is Applicant’s position that the Gorday reference
`does not state the above, but rather states “that icons are arranged to show relative
`locations in approximate scale”. At no time does Gorday discuss a geographical
`map orrelating the icons to a geographical map, No drawing of a geographical
`map is depicted in the displays shown in Gorday but only a relative position of
`points of smallcircles is depicted.
`
`7) The Examinerstates that “Gorday teaches performing at least one or more of
`the following steps on Pages 11 and 12 of the Examiner’s office action. It is
`Applicant’s position that none of the items in the list are correct including
`automatically exchanging cell phone numbers using SMS, pushing photographsor
`video clips, exchanging IP addresses and Email addresses, calling the nearest
`fixed location (police station, fire station, and EMT).
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 103-4 Filed 04/18/22 Page 13 of 30
`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 103-4 Filed 04/18/22 Page 13 of 30
`
`Application/Control Number: 90/014,889
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 10
`
`8) With respect to Claim 19, the Examinerstates that Gorday discloses providing
`rapid voice initiation and communication to the users of a PDA/GPS network
`system using a touch screen as in Paragraph (0012). It is Applicant’s position that
`there is no mention of voice transmission in Gorday’s patentbutitis strictly
`digital communications. Gorday does not discuss photographsor video.
`
`The Examiner’s rejection of claims 13-16 under 35 U.S.C, 103(a) as being
`unpatentable over Gorday (2004/019233 1) in view of Fumarolo (US 6,204,844)
`is respectfully traversed.
`
`Applicant herein reiterates the comments made above with respect to the Gorday
`et al. reference and the differences between the Gordayet al. reference and
`Applicant’s claimed invention in claims 13-16. Fumarolo shows “A Method and
`Apparatus for Dynamically Grouping Communication Units in a Communication
`System”. The system is more compatible with a dispatch type of communication
`system that has a wireless infrastructure with a plurality of two way radios. The
`map display allows the dispatcher a tool for evaluating emergencysituations. The
`Fumarolo system provides a method and apparatus that allows a user of a display
`based terminal such as a computer aided dispatch system of having integrated
`mapping program to dynamically group and ungroup communication units from a
`single map environment. Thisis quite different than the system disclosed in
`Gordayet al. and Applicant’s system. Fumarolo has to do with establishing
`position related voice talk groups whereunits are shifted to a different talk group
`(frequency) whencars having radios enter and exit a geographical area. Fumarolo
`does not address an identifier of any type such as coin collectors, golfers or
`singles, nor does that device create a server table that relates units to an identifier
`whichis the predetermined condition. The fact is that Fumarolorelates to a car
`dispatcher manually adjusting call groups. It has nothing to do with the ability of
`user to enter an identifier incorporating people of like, subject matter, or criteria
`into a communications group. Therefore, it is Applicant’s position that when
`viewing claims 13-16 a person of ordinary skill in the art even if that person did
`try to combine Gordayet al. with Fumarolo would not arrive at Applicant’s
`specifically claimed. invention in claims 13-16.
`
`The Examiner’s rejection of claim 18 under U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable
`over Gorday (2004/0192331) in view of Mizuno (US 2006/003 1927) is
`respectfully traversed. Applicant herein reiterates the numerous differences in
`structure and operation between the Gorday reference and Applicant’s claimed
`invention in Claim 18 as reiterated above. Again, it is Applicant’s position that
`the information management system shown in Mizunois completely different and
`unrelated to the specific structure and function of Applicant’s claimed invention
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 103-4 Filed 04/18/22 Page 14 of 30
`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 103-4 Filed 04/18/22 Page 14 of 30
`
`Application/Control Number: 90/014,889
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 11
`
`in Claim 18. Column 2 in Paragraphs 0013 through Page 2, Column 1 in
`Paragraph 0023 of the Mizunoreference describes a system completely different
`than Applicant’s claimed invention in Claim 18. Overall, the Mizuno reference is
`a system for controlling an apparatus provided to an intranet for managing group
`information andfiles. Sufficient to say that it’s the Applicant’s position is that if
`one were to combine Gorday and Mizunoonecould not possibly arrive at the
`structure and operational system defined in applicant’s Claim 18,
`
`The Examiner’s rejection of claim 19 under U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable
`over Gorday (2004/0192331) in view of Augustet al. (US 2004/0204070) is
`respectfully traversed. Applicant herein reiterates the comments and descriptions
`of the Gorday reference above and the numerous differences between the Gorday
`reference andthe structure in Applicant’s Claim 19 whichare applicable to the
`comments made on earlier claims on Gorday’s deficiencies. The August et al
`reference US 2004/0204070 published October 14, 2004 shows a system and
`method for remotely accessing configuration information. Augustis classified in
`US class 455 and subclass 557. The system is a cellular phone response to a
`request for configuration information by forming a data packet containing the
`configuration information whichis sent to a remote computer whereit is stored in
`permanentstorage for later retrieval. The August et al system is completely
`unrelated to Applicant’s communication system and the network for unique
`individuals in Applicant’s communication network as defined and recited in
`Applicant’s amendedclaim 19. It is Applicant’s position that the combination of
`Gorday et al and Augustet al cannot result in the Applicant’s Claim 19 invention
`becauseof the serious deficiencies in both Gorday and August. August makes
`absolutely no reference to anonymous calls. Thus, it is Applicant’s position that
`the Examinerhasnot provided a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to
`Claim 19.
`
`On September 21, 2009, the PTO issued a Notice of Allowance allowing claims 11-9 and
`
`21-28. The notice included an authorized Examiner’s amendment. The amendment amended
`
`claims 11, 14-16, and 18-19 and cancelled claim 13. Claims 18 and 19 were amended as
`
`follows:
`
`18. (Currently Amended) A method for providing a cellular phone
`communication network for designated participating users, each user having a
`similarly equipped cellular phone that includes a CPU, GPS navigational system,
`an interact message transmitter and receiver and a touch screen display
`comprising:
`
`providing accessing a database in each cell phone that includes a geographical
`map of a predetermined area for user viewing on the touch screen display;
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 103-4 Filed 04/18/22 Page 15 of 30
`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 103-4 Filed 04/18/22 Page 15 of 30
`
`Application/Control Number: 90/014,889
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 12
`
`providing accessing an application program in each cell phone for generating one
`or more symbols representative of one or more participating users, each of whom
`have a similarly equipped cellular phone;
`
`providing accessing a database in each cell phonethat includes cellular telephone
`numbersof each of the participating users having similarly equipped cellular
`phones, said database including the generation of one or more symbols associated
`with a particular participating user;
`
`calling a participating user by touching the symbol on the map display and
`touching a call switch;
`
`providing connecting each of the cell phones with to an internet connection
`capability;
`
`exchanging IP addresses using SMSor other digital message format between and
`among eachof the network participant users so that communications earn
`between participants can then be is established via IP or transmission of a network
`participant's IP address to a server which then transmits data to other network
`participants using the IP address previously whteh+they-have-alse-sentiethe
`Server
`
`19. (Currently Amended) A method of providing a cellular phone communication
`network for designated participating users, each having a similarly equipped PDA
`cellular phone that includes a CPU, a GPS navigational system and a touch screen
`display comprising:
`
`providing selecting an icon that establishes rapid voicecall initiation and
`communication to the users of the cellular telephone PDA/GPS network system
`using by touching their symbol on the phone's a touch screen;
`
`providing transmitting high speed internet rapid transmission of operator selected
`text messages, photographs, voice recordings and video to other cellular phone
`users using the touch screen;
`
`providing accessing a server for establishing high speed internet communications
`betweensaid cellular phone network users and said server; and
`
`establishing generating at the server networks that-can-enable enabling
`anonymous voice and data communicationsso that neither the originator of the
`phonecall or data transmission nor the receiver of the phone call or data
`transmission need to know the other's phone number, nameorotheridentifier
`other than a symbollocation on a map.
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 103-4 Filed 04/18/22 Page 16 of 30
`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 103-4 Filed 04/18/22 Page 16 of 30
`
`Application/Control Number: 90/014,889
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 13
`
`The Notice also included the following Examiner’s reasonsfor allowance:
`
`The prior art made of record andrelied upon by the examinerin the prosecution
`of this Application," fails or even suggest “A method of providing a PDA cellular
`phone communication network for designating participating users displayed
`symbolically on a geographical map, each user having a similarly equipped
`cellular phone that includes CPU, GPS navigational system symbol generator and
`a touch screen display comprising the steps of: selecting screen icons for
`establishing rapid voice call initiation and communicationto the users of the
`cellular telephone PDA/GPSnetwork system using a touch screen; transmitting
`high speed internet selected text messages, photographs and video to other
`cellular phone users by touching each user’s geo-located symbol on the touch
`screen; establishing a network of cellular phone PDAdevices for said users
`having the same operating software that permits either voice communication and
`low speed communicationsor high speed internet communications;
`communicating by icon selection with a remote [sic] for receiving and
`transmitting over the internet high speed