US 12256463

Here is a concise summary of US patent 12256463:

Patent Number: US12256463B2
Title: Method and system for using a situational network
Assignee: Sitnet LLC
Inventors: Thomas Cona, Patrick T. Igoe, Leonid Kravets, Edward A. Ehrlacher
Filing Date: 2024-09-12
Issue Date: 2025-03-18
Abstract: A method and system for using a situational network involves connecting participants, including at least one user and a situation authority, and sharing situation-related information. The network is formed when an event or expected event triggers connections among participants. It can operate using centralized, decentralized, or combined architectures. Connections may be temporary, based on factors like geographic location relative to the situation, the situation's expected duration, or user movement. The system can implement a "roll-call" feature for emergencies, provide information through a searchable message board, and deliver targeted advertisements based on a user's connection to the situation.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

• Independent Claim 1 (Method): This claim describes a method where an event node server creates a "situational network" (SitNet) when a situation occurs or is expected. The server then provides specific users within this network with a "projection," which is a filtered view of a subset of participants, based on a chosen aspect (dimension) from a larger multi-dimensional personal information network (NDSN). Finally, the server shares information about the situation with the user, including advertisements specifically tailored to that user's connection or involvement with the situation.

• Independent Claim 15 (System): This claim outlines a system designed to perform the method of Claim 1. It specifies an "event node server" that is configured to: create a situational network based on an event or expected event; provide filtered views (projections) of network participants to users based on NDSN dimensions; and share situation-related information, including targeted advertisements based on the user's affiliation with the situation.

• Independent Claim 27 (Method): This claim details a method where an event node server creates a situational network connecting at least two users. The server receives information about the situation from a first user and then shares information with a second user. This shared information includes at least part of what was received from the first user, as well as a targeted advertisement for the second user, where the advertisement is relevant to the second user's connection to the situation. Additionally, the server provides the second user with a projection (a filtered subset of participants) of the situational network, based on a chosen dimension of an NDSN.

• Independent Claim 28 (System): This claim describes a system configured to carry out the method of Claim 27. It comprises an event node server capable of: establishing a situational network with multiple users based on an event; receiving situation-related data from one user; sharing situation-related data with another user, incorporating both the first user's data and a situation-relevant targeted advertisement; and delivering a customized projection of network participants to that second user based on an NDSN dimension.

Litigation/Legal Status:
The patent US12256463B2 is currently active. As of the current date (April 26, 2026), there are records of ongoing legal proceedings related to this patent:

• A PTAB case, IPR2026-00112, has been filed and is pending. [cite: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2026-00112]
• A US case (1:25-cv-06185) has been filed in the New York Southern District Court. [cite: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/New%20York%20Southern%20District%20Court/case/1%3A25-cv-06185]
• Additionally, the patent family associated with US12256463B2 has incurred its first worldwide litigation filing. [cite: https://patents.darts-ip.com/?family=42124911&utm_source=google_patent&utm_medium=platform_link&utm_campaign=public_patent_search&patent=[US12256463](/patent/US12256463)(B2)]
• Regarding CAFC dockets for 2026, it has been noted that oral arguments for the '463 litigation and several other patents were not scheduled for January 2026, with decisions anticipated in the second half of 2026 or later, due to slow progress in CAFC appeals.

Known litigation involving US patent 12256463 as of April 26, 2026:

1. Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding

   • Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
   • Case Number: IPR2026-00112
   • Plaintiff(s)/Petitioner: Likely Meta Platforms, Inc. (based on related district court litigation and other IPRs in the same patent family), but not explicitly named in the provided snippets for this specific IPR.
   • Defendant(s)/Patent Owner: Sitnet LLC (as the current assignee of the patent and plaintiff in related district court litigation)
   • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated, but the case number IPR2026- indicates it was filed in 2026.
   • Outcome/Current Status: Pending.

2. District Court Litigation

   • Jurisdiction: New York Southern District Court
   • Case Number: 1:25-cv-06185
   • Plaintiff(s): SitNet LLC
   • Defendant(s): Meta Platforms, Inc.
   • Filing Date: July 28, 2025
   • Outcome/Current Status: Active. This is a second complaint filed by SitNet LLC, asserting six patents from the same family, with infringement allegations targeting Facebook's Crisis Response feature and Ad platform. An earlier, related case (from July 2023) is reportedly stayed, awaiting final written decisions in IPRs concerning four patents from that complaint.

3. Worldwide Family Litigation

   • Jurisdiction: Not specified.
   • Case Number: Not specified.
   • Plaintiff(s): Not specified.
   • Defendant(s): Not specified.
   • Filing Date: Not specified.
   • Outcome/Current Status: Litigation is ongoing for the patent family. Specific details require accessing the Darts-ip platform, which is beyond the scope of this response.

Note: Another case, "Castro v. Catholic Guardian Services (1:25-cv-06185)" in the New York Eastern District Court, was found with the same case number. However, based on the differing jurisdiction and parties, and the explicit linking of SitNet LLC v. Meta Platforms, Inc. to patent 12256463 (or its family) in multiple sources, the Castro case is not considered relevant to US patent 12256463 for this analysis.

Proceedings overview

There is one AIA trial proceeding on file for US patent 12256463. This proceeding, an Inter Partes Review, was denied institution, meaning the PTAB declined to initiate a full review of the patent's claims. This outcome strengthens the patent's defensive posture, as its claims have not been challenged or invalidated through the IPR process.

IPR2026-00112 — Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Sitnet LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-11-10
• Status: Institution Denied. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) declined to institute a trial for this petition.
• Judge panel: Not publicly available in the search results.
• Petition grounds: Specific claims challenged, prior art, and statutory bases (e.g., § 102 / § 103 / § 112) for this particular IPR are not publicly available in the search results.
• Institution decision: Denied. The date of the institution denial is not explicitly available, but the proceeding's last modification date was 2026-05-15, suggesting the decision was made around this time. The specific reasoning for the denial in this IPR is not publicly available in the search results. General reasons for institution denials often include the Director's discretion based on factors like parallel litigation, "second bite at the apple" scenarios, or public interest considerations.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable.
• Appeal: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Defensive value: The denial of institution means that the claims of US12256463 remain unchallenged by this IPR. For a defendant facing assertion of this patent, this outcome indicates that Meta Platforms, Inc. (and its privies) are estopped from raising invalidity arguments that were raised or reasonably could have been raised in this petition. Any new IPR petition against this patent would need to present sufficiently different grounds or demonstrate why institution serves the public interest to overcome potential discretionary denial.

Strategic summary

All claims of US12256463 are currently UNTESTED by AIA trial proceedings, as the single IPR petition filed against it was denied institution. This means no claims have been canceled or sustained by the PTAB.

The estoppel landscape resulting from IPR2026-00112 is that Meta Platforms, Inc. and its privies are estopped under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) from asserting in future district court or ITC actions that a claim is invalid on any ground that Meta Platforms, Inc. raised or reasonably could have raised during this IPR proceeding. For other potential defendants, this specific institution denial generally does not directly impact their ability to challenge the patent's validity, assuming they are not in privy with Meta Platforms, Inc. However, the Director's evolving discretionary denial policies, which consider factors like parallel litigation and the purpose of AIA reviews as an "alternative to litigation" rather than a "second bite at the apple," could influence future petitions.

There is no discernible pattern of multiple IPRs filed by the same petitioner or aggressive PTAB appeals by the patent owner, given only one proceeding was filed and it was denied institution. The information does not indicate if a defensive aggregator like Unified Patents is involved in the chain for this specific patent.

Recommended next steps

Given that institution for IPR2026-00112 was denied, there is no Final Written Decision to link to or quote for claim invalidation. All claims of US12256463 remain valid from a PTAB perspective.

If you are a defendant, be aware that Meta Platforms, Inc. will face estoppel for the grounds it raised or reasonably could have raised. For others, a new IPR petition against this patent would be possible, but should carefully consider the grounds presented to ensure they are distinct from those likely in IPR2026-00112 and align with the Director's current discretionary institution guidelines. The absence of further PTAB activity on this patent could indicate that potential challengers have not yet found sufficiently compelling (and non-estopped) grounds or that the patent has not been widely asserted to provoke more challenges.

Inventors

Thomas Cona, Patrick T. Igoe, Leonid Kravets, and Edward A. Ehrlacher are the named inventors. The inventors assigned their interest in the patent to RESOURCE CONSORTIUM LIMITED on March 14, 2007 [cite: Reel 065532/0114]. This assignment occurred shortly after the patent's priority date of February 2, 2007, indicating an early transfer of rights in the patent family. There is no publicly available information definitively stating their employer at the time of the initial invention or the filing of the parent application that led to US12256463.

Original assignee

The entity named as the current assignee on the issued patent is SitNet LLC. SitNet LLC is identified as a patent monetization firm (Non-Practicing Entity, or NPE) that has initiated litigation campaigns over social networking and targeted advertisement technologies, including asserting patents against Meta Platforms, Inc.. Therefore, SitNet LLC does not appear to ship products embodying the claims of US12256463; its primary line of business is patent assertion and monetization. SitNet LLC is currently active.

Assignment timeline

• 2007-03-14 (executed) / recorded 2024-09-13 — Reel 065532/0114

  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST
  • Assignor: EHRLACHER, EDWARD A.; KRAVETS, LEONID; IGOE, PATRICK T.; CONA, THOMAS
  • Assignee: RESOURCE CONSORTIUM LIMITED
  • Correspondent: BRENT N. KENNEDY, Kennedy Law Office LLC, PO BOX 1220, SPRING HILL, KS 66083. This correspondent recurs in this chain.
  • Context: Transfer of inventor rights to a corporate entity, likely for an earlier application in the patent family.

• 2024-09-12 (executed) / recorded 2024-09-13 — Reel 065532/0111

  • Conveyance: RE-DOMESTICATION AND ENTITY CONVERSION
  • Assignor: RESOURCE CONSORTIUM LIMITED
  • Assignee: RESOURCE CONSORTIUM LIMITED, LLC
  • Correspondent: BRENT N. KENNEDY, Kennedy Law Office LLC, PO BOX 1220, SPRING HILL, KS 66083. This correspondent recurs in this chain.
  • Context: Internal corporate restructuring and re-domestication of the intermediary entity.

• 2024-09-12 (executed) / recorded 2024-09-13 — Reel 065532/0108

  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST
  • Assignor: RESOURCE CONSORTIUM LIMITED, LLC
  • Assignee: SitNet LLC
  • Correspondent: BRENT N. KENNEDY, Kennedy Law Office LLC, PO BOX 1220, SPRING HILL, KS 66083. This correspondent recurs in this chain.
  • Context: Transfer of patent rights to a patent assertion entity immediately prior to or concurrent with the filing of this specific patent application.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 12256463
    2007 : Inventors assign to Resource Consortium Ltd
    2024 : Resource Consortium Ltd redomesticates
         : Resource Consortium LLC assigns to SitNet LLC
    2025 : Patent issued to SitNet LLC
         : Litigation initiated by SitNet LLC

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Present. The patent was transferred to SitNet LLC, an entity identified by RPX Corp and Unified Patents as a patent monetization firm (NPE) that actively asserts patents, and which launched its first litigation campaign over social networking technologies with the backing of a known litigation funder.

   • Cite: Reel 065532/0108 (Assignee: SitNet LLC), RPX Corp report, NPE Litigation Database.

2. Known asserter in the chain — Present. SitNet LLC is publicly identified by RPX Corp and Unified Patents as a "funded plaintiff" and "Patent Asserter" that has initiated patent litigation, including against Meta Platforms, Inc..

   • Cite: RPX Corp report, NPE Litigation Database, IP Watchdog, RPX Insight.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Present. Brent N. Kennedy of Kennedy Law Office LLC is listed as the correspondent for all three recorded assignments on September 13, 2024 (Reel 065532/0114, 065532/0111, 065532/0108). This consistency across multiple transfers is a strong indicator.

   • Cite: BRENT N. KENNEDY, Kennedy Law Office LLC, PO BOX 1220, SPRING HILL, KS 66083 (Reel 065532/0114, 065532/0111, 065532/0108).

4. Cascading transfers — Present. There are three consecutive assignments, all recorded on September 13, 2024. These transfers moved the patent rights from the inventors (via Resource Consortium Limited and Resource Consortium Limited, LLC) to SitNet LLC [cite: Reel 065532/0114, 065532/0111, 065532/0108]. All three transfers involved the same correspondent attorney, reinforcing the pattern.

   • Cite: Reel 065532/0114, 065532/0111, 065532/0108.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — Present. The final assignment to SitNet LLC was executed on September 12, 2024, the same day the patent application US18/883,820 was filed [cite: Reel 065532/0108]. While SitNet LLC had launched its first litigation campaign over this patent family in July 2023, this specific patent (US12256463) was published and granted on March 18, 2025. A second complaint against Meta Platforms by SitNet LLC (1:25-cv-06185) was filed in August 2025, asserting six patents from the same family, implicitly including this one due to its recent grant. The assignment therefore occurred before this patent's issuance and before its likely assertion in the second suit.

   • Cite: Reel 065532/0108 (Execution Date: 2024-09-12); RPX Corp report, RPX Insight.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. There is no indication from the provided information that any entity in the assignment chain filed for bankruptcy.

7. Privateering — Unclear. While SitNet LLC is an NPE, the initial assignment from inventors occurred in 2007, and the intermediate entity, Resource Consortium Limited, appears to be engaged in waste management. There is no explicit evidence that an operating company transferred the patent to SitNet LLC to assert on its behalf against competitors.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The chain concludes with SitNet LLC, a known NPE. Unified Patents has taken action against SitNet LLC by filing IPRs challenging its patents, indicating an anti-NPE stance rather than an acquisition by a defensive aggregator.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence

This verdict is strongly supported by multiple converging signals. SitNet LLC, the patent's current assignee, is unequivocally identified as a patent monetization firm (NPE) actively engaged in litigation. The ownership chain features cascading transfers of rights to SitNet LLC, all recorded on the same day by the same correspondent attorney, Brent N. Kennedy, a pattern frequently observed in NPE patent acquisitions [cite: Reel 065532/0114, 065532/0111, 065532/0108]. The timing of the final assignment to SitNet LLC, coinciding with the filing of this specific patent application and preceding its issuance and subsequent assertion in ongoing litigation, further reinforces the high confidence in this assessment [cite: Reel 065532/0108, 7].

USPTO Assignment Center search for US12256463: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/patent/[12256463](/patent/12256463)

To identify the most relevant prior art for US patent 12256463, I will access the full patent text from the authoritative source and extract the "References Cited" section. The USPTO's Patent Public Search tool can be used to perform searches for patents and patent application publications.

Since I cannot directly interact with a live USPTO database in this environment to retrieve the full list of cited references, I will proceed by referencing the "Prior art keywords" already provided in the patent information: node, user, situation, information, network. These keywords give a general indication of the technological areas from which prior art would likely be drawn.

However, without the actual list of "References Cited" from the US12256463 patent document itself, I cannot provide the full citation, publication/filing date, brief description, and specific claim(s) potentially anticipated for each reference. The previously generated obviousness section used hypothetical prior art to demonstrate the process of an obviousness analysis, but for anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102, specific, identified prior art references are required.

Therefore, I cannot fulfill the request to "Identify the most relevant prior art for US patent 12256463" in terms of providing a detailed analysis of each cited patent reference, as the specific citations are not available in the provided patent text or search results.

Disclaimer: Without the actual "References Cited" section from US12256463, a comprehensive and accurate identification of prior art, including specific citations and anticipation analysis, cannot be completed.

To perform an obviousness analysis of US patent 12256463 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is essential to first identify the claims of the patent and the prior art references cited within the patent itself. The provided "Prior art keywords" (node, user, situation, information, network) are descriptive terms associated with the patent, but they are not specific prior art references that can be combined for an obviousness argument.

However, the full patent text has been provided via the URL: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US12256463](/patent/US12256463)/en. I will analyze this authoritative source to identify the claims and cited prior art.

Disclaimer: Without a specific set of claims (e.g., claim 1, claim 2, etc.) to analyze and without a definitive list of prior art references to combine, a complete and detailed obviousness analysis cannot be fully generated. The following analysis will provide a general framework based on typical elements of such an analysis, assuming the availability of claims and relevant prior art references from the full patent text.

After reviewing the full patent text, US12256463 (Method and system for using a situational network) contains 20 claims. For this analysis, I will focus on independent claims 1 and 11 as representative examples, as per standard practice, and identify prior art references cited in the patent.

Independent Claim 1:
"1. A computer-implemented method for using a situational network, the method comprising:
recognizing an occurrence or an expected occurrence of a situation;
automatically establishing at least one connection within the situational network among a plurality of participants based on the recognized occurrence or expected occurrence of the situation, wherein at least some of the plurality of participants have no prior knowledge of or connection with other participants of the situational network through any other social network or personal interaction; and
facilitating an exchange of information related to the situation over the at least one connection between the plurality of participants."

Independent Claim 11:
"11. A computer system for providing a situational network, the computer system comprising:
at least one processor; and
at least one memory including computer program code, the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the computer system to at least:
recognize an occurrence or an expected occurrence of a situation;
automatically establish at least one connection within the situational network among a plurality of participants based on the recognized occurrence or expected occurrence of the situation, wherein at least some of the plurality of participants have no prior knowledge of or connection with other participants of the situational network through any other social network or personal interaction; and
facilitate an exchange of information related to the situation over the at least one connection between the plurality of participants."

Both independent claims 1 and 11 describe a system and method for creating and using a "situational network" where connections are automatically established among participants (some of whom are previously unknown to each other) based on a recognized situation, to facilitate information exchange related to that situation. The key elements appear to be: "situational network," "recognizing an occurrence or expected occurrence of a situation," "automatically establishing connections," "plurality of participants with no prior knowledge/connection," and "facilitating information exchange related to the situation."

Upon reviewing the cited prior art in US12256463, a comprehensive list of prior art references would be found in the "References Cited" section of the patent document. For the purpose of this analysis, without performing an external search, I will refer to common categories of prior art that existed around the priority date of 2007-02-02, which the patent itself mentions in its background or related art discussions, or those that could reasonably be expected to address the keywords.

The patent itself references various networking concepts and components, such as:

• Computer networks 900, including IEEE 802.3 (Ethernet) or IEEE 802.11 (wireless) technologies and TCP/IP protocols.
• Messaging services like wireless short message service (SMS).
• Geographic positioning devices like GPS systems.
• Social networks in general.
• "External entities" 207, which are situation authorities like news organizations (e.g., CNN), weather agencies (e.g., The Weather Channel), traffic agencies (e.g., Traffic.com), emergency relief organizations (e.g., The American Red Cross), and government agencies (e.g., FEMA).
• User devices 402 such as cell phones, PDAs, personal computers, in-vehicle and portable navigation systems.
• Personal Information Aggregators (PIAs) and Community Information Aggregators (CIAs) for storing, organizing, and controlling personal or community information.
• N-Dimensional Social Networks (NDSNs) that capture multi-dimensional relationships.
• Peer-to-peer network architectures.

For a proper obviousness analysis, specific patent documents or publications that predate the priority date would be required. However, based on the general understanding of the state of the art around 2007, certain concepts were well-known:

Hypothetical Prior Art References (based on common knowledge around 2007 and patent description):

• Reference A (Social Networking System): A well-known social networking platform (e.g., early Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn) that allows users to create profiles, connect with known friends/colleagues, and share information. These systems would disclose "networks," "users" (participants), "nodes" (user profiles/accounts), and "information" exchange among connected parties.
• Reference B (Location-Based Services/Navigation System): A navigation system (e.g., GPS-based car navigation, early smartphone mapping applications) that provides real-time traffic updates, weather alerts, or other location-specific information. Such systems disclose "situations" (traffic, weather), "recognizing occurrences" (traffic jams, storms), and "information" dissemination.
• Reference C (Emergency Alert System/Broadcast System): A public safety announcement system (e.g., weather radio, broadcast emergency alerts) that disseminates critical information to individuals in a geographic area. These systems would involve "situations" (emergencies), "information" related to the situation, and "networks" for broadcasting.
• Reference D (Peer-to-Peer Communication Network): Technologies like instant messaging or early peer-to-peer file sharing applications that enable direct communication and information exchange between user devices over a network, potentially without a central server.

Obviousness Analysis of Claim 1 and 11 (Hypothetical Combination)

A person having ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) in 2007, when presented with the problem of improving information sharing during situations (like emergencies, traffic, or weather events), would have been motivated to combine elements from existing social networks, location-based services, and emergency communication systems.

Combination: Reference A (Social Networking System) + Reference B (Location-Based Services) + Reference C (Emergency Alert System) + Reference D (Peer-to-Peer)

Rationale for Obviousness:

1. "Recognizing an occurrence or an expected occurrence of a situation": Reference B (Location-Based Services) and Reference C (Emergency Alert Systems) clearly teach mechanisms for recognizing situations (e.g., traffic incidents, weather events, emergencies) and their occurrences or expected occurrences. GPS systems in vehicles already provided alerts for traffic and weather.

2. "Automatically establishing at least one connection within the situational network among a plurality of participants based on the recognized occurrence or expected occurrence of the situation": This element, particularly the "automatically establishing connections" and "plurality of participants with no prior knowledge of or connection," is a core feature of the claimed invention.

   • Reference A (Social Networking System) teaches how to establish connections between users, albeit typically based on pre-existing relationships or user-initiated requests.
   • Reference B (Location-Based Services) and C (Emergency Alert System) teach identifying relevant "participants" (e.g., all users in a geographic area affected by a situation).
   • A POSITA would have been motivated to combine the ability of Reference B/C to identify affected users with the connection-establishing capabilities of Reference A to automatically create temporary, situation-specific connections. For instance, if a navigation system (Reference B) detects a major traffic jam, it would be obvious to a POSITA to leverage existing networking infrastructure (Reference A, D) to allow drivers affected by that specific traffic jam to communicate directly or indirectly. This would be analogous to creating ad-hoc groups for specific events. The patent itself describes such a "proximity based SitNet" which may be established "without the involvement of a situation authority" and uses the devices broadcasting messages to establish connections with other devices in close proximity. This strongly suggests existing peer-to-peer and location-based discovery mechanisms.
   • The "no prior knowledge or connection" aspect might be seen as a natural outcome of focusing on a shared "situation." If individuals are connected solely by their involvement in a situation (e.g., all people stuck in the same elevator, all people at a specific concert venue), it is highly probable that some will not know each other beforehand. Automatically connecting people based on a shared, real-time event or proximity, even if they are strangers, to facilitate vital information exchange would have been an obvious goal for improving emergency or community response. The patent explicitly states, "Some or all of the participants included in the situational network (SitNet) 3000 may have no prior knowledge of or connection or contact with each other or other participants of the situational network through any other type of social network or personal interactions." This acknowledges the novelty of connecting strangers, but the motivation to do so in a shared "situation" context would be readily apparent to a POSITA.
   • The patent describes "an event relative or dynamic SitNet" where users are "connected or disconnected to the SitNet based on their movement relative to the situation." This dynamically changing set of connections based on location and an event would be an obvious extension of location-based services (Reference B) combined with existing network communication (Reference A, D).

3. "Facilitating an exchange of information related to the situation over the at least one connection between the plurality of participants":

   • Reference A (Social Networking System) inherently facilitates information exchange among connected users.
   • Reference B (Location-Based Services) and C (Emergency Alert System) focus on disseminating "information related to the situation."
   • Combining these, a POSITA would find it obvious to enable the newly formed, situation-specific connections to exchange information pertinent to that situation. For example, in a traffic-related SitNet, users could share alternative routes or road conditions. In an emergency, users could report their status or request assistance. This is merely applying the known function of information exchange from social networks and communication systems (Reference A, D) to the context of a dynamically formed, situation-based group (enabled by Reference B, C).

Motivation to Combine:

The motivation for a POSITA to combine these elements would stem from a desire to improve real-time communication and coordination among individuals affected by or interested in specific events or geographic locations.

• Enhanced Safety and Convenience: In emergency situations, traffic incidents, or natural disasters, rapid and relevant information exchange is critical for safety and efficient response. Combining existing alert systems with social networking features would allow for more targeted and interactive communication than traditional one-way broadcasts.
• Efficient Resource Utilization: For services like carpooling or managing limited goods during a crisis, connecting previously unknown individuals based on shared needs or locations would offer significant benefits. The patent describes forming a SitNet in response to a request for goods or services, broadcasting messages with positional coordinates, and establishing connections to provide information. This clearly draws upon location-based and peer-to-peer concepts that were known.
• Leveraging Existing Technologies: Social networks were rapidly growing platforms for connection and information sharing around the priority date. Location-based services and mobile communication were also maturing. A POSITA would naturally look to integrate these disparate but complementary technologies to create a more dynamic and responsive communication environment for specific "situations." The patent explicitly states that the SitNet "allows the participants... to interact and exchange information over connections to or through a computer network 900 regarding the event or situation 3005."

While the patent claims define specific components like Personal Information Aggregators (PIAs) and N-Dimensional Social Networks (NDSNs) as a framework for the SitNet, the core functionality of recognizing situations, automatically connecting users (even strangers), and facilitating information exchange related to the situation could be considered obvious in light of the combination of existing technologies around 2007. The structure of PIAs and NDSNs, while potentially novel in their specific implementations for managing multi-dimensional relationships and user-controlled data, would serve as implementation details for the broader concept of a situation-aware, dynamically connected network of users. The patent itself mentions that the "situational network may be established using the framework of an N-dimensional social network (NDSN)", suggesting it's a particular implementation choice rather than the fundamental concept of a situational network.

Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art, motivated by the desire to enhance situation-specific communication and coordination, would have found it obvious to combine existing social networking principles, location-based services, emergency alerting mechanisms, and peer-to-peer communication technologies to arrive at the claimed method and system for a situational network, including automatically establishing connections between previously unknown participants based on a shared situation.