Obviousness

The analysis of US Patent 9,119,038 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for obviousness is based on the general state of the art as described within the patent's own background section, as specific prior art references are not provided in the "Prior art keywords" or "Prior art date" sections of the Google Patents page beyond generic terms. Therefore, I will frame the obviousness analysis by combining elements explicitly described as known in the background with motivations clearly articulated within the patent for further development. A Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (PHOSITA) in 2013 (the patent's priority date) would have possessed knowledge of existing geolocation technologies, geofencing applications, and the challenges associated with their implementation.

General Knowledge of a PHOSITA (circa 2013, based on patent background):

The patent's "Background" and "Detailed Description" sections explicitly state that at the time of filing:

• Portable computing devices (smartphones, tablets, laptops) commonly included geolocation capabilities (GPS, cellular signal receivers, WiFi receivers) for determining device location [cite: Many portable electronic or computing devices].
• These devices could transmit queries to location service providers, which would then determine geographic coordinates via triangulation, signal databases, or other means [cite: these devices].
• Geofences were "typically used for triggering an event, such as the location-based reminders provided by the iOS operating system component Siri, manufactured by [Apple Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Apple%20Inc.)" [cite: Geofences].
• A known problem with typical geofencing systems was that devices would "transmit location queries and perform coordinate comparisons at frequent intervals, regardless of how far the user is from arriving home," leading to reduced battery life and needless consumption of bandwidth and CPU cycles [cite: In these typical systems].
• The concept of collecting user information or demographic data for various services was known, though not explicitly detailed in the context of geofencing in the background. However, the patent immediately identifies the potential for "Geolocation information may be monitored via notifications from portable devices to identify demographics of users within identified regions and subregions, allowing real-time, dynamic comparison of demographic information between locations" as a solution, suggesting the underlying concepts of demographic collection and comparison were generally understood goals or techniques [cite: Geolocation information].

Obviousness Analysis of Independent Claims

Given the general knowledge of a PHOSITA as outlined above, the following combinations and motivations for development could render the independent claims of US 9,119,038 obvious.

Independent Claim 1 (Method for tracking locations of a plurality of devices within overlapping geofences)

Elements of Claim 1:

1. Receiving, by a location analyzer executed by a computing device, an identification of (i) a first region defined by a first geofence; (ii) a second region defined by a second geofence distinct from the first geofence; and (iii) a third region defined by a third geofence including the first region and second region.
2. Receiving, by the location analyzer, a plurality of arrival notifications from a corresponding plurality of devices, each arrival notification sent by each device responsive to said device determining it has entered the third geofence.
3. Receiving, by the location analyzer, user information for a user of each of the plurality of devices.
4. Identifying, by the location analyzer, a first subset of the plurality of devices that are within the first region and a second subset of the plurality of devices that are within the second region.
5. Comparing, by the location analyzer, user information of the users of the first subset of the plurality of devices and user information of the users of the second subset of the plurality of devices.
6. Transmitting, by the location analyzer to a second computing device, a comparison metric identifying a difference between users of the first subset of the plurality of devices and users of the second subset of the plurality of devices.

Obviousness Argument:
A PHOSITA would know that geofences are used to define geographic locations and trigger events upon entry [cite: Geofences]. They would also understand that portable devices are capable of determining and reporting their location to a central service [cite: these devices]. The patent itself presents the problem and solution: "Geolocation information may be monitored via notifications from portable devices to identify demographics of users within identified regions and subregions, allowing real-time, dynamic comparison of demographic information between locations, such as restaurants, clubs, or events" [cite: Geolocation information].

The motivation to combine existing geofencing technology with the collection and comparison of user demographic information across multiple locations is clearly articulated as a desired outcome by the patent. If a PHOSITA knew how to set up a geofence for a single location (e.g., "home" for a reminder [cite: a user]), it would be an obvious engineering extension to define multiple distinct geofences (first and second regions, representing different venues) and a larger encompassing geofence (third region) to manage device monitoring within a broader area. Collecting user information (e.g., demographic data) associated with devices (e.g., from user profiles registered with a service, as described in the detailed description [cite: the user]) and then performing a comparison of this data between groups of users in different regions would be a logical step for a PHOSITA aiming to achieve the "real-time, dynamic comparison of demographic information between locations" [cite: Geolocation information]. The "location analyzer" is a functional component described to perform these known data processing and comparison tasks.

Independent Claim 9 (System for tracking locations of a plurality of devices within overlapping geofences)

Elements of Claim 9:
Claim 9 defines a system comprising a computing device executing a "location analyzer" configured to perform the method steps of Claim 1.

Obviousness Argument:
Given that the method of Claim 1 would be obvious to a PHOSITA, the system of Claim 9, which is merely a computing device programmed to perform that method, would likewise be obvious. Implementing a known method on a generic computing device with a processor is a routine design choice for a PHOSITA. The "location analyzer" is a software module or set of instructions whose functions directly mirror the steps of Claim 1, and the construction of such a module would be well within the capabilities of a PHOSITA using standard programming techniques and available hardware (as exemplified by FIG. 6 and its description of a generic computing device [cite: FIG. 6]).

Independent Claim 15 (Method for a portable computing device tracking locations within overlapping geofences)

Elements of Claim 15:

1. Receiving, by a portable computing device, an identification of a first geofence defining a first region.
2. Determining a current location of the portable computing device.
3. Comparing the current location of the portable computing device to the identified first geofence.
4. Transmitting, by the portable computing device to a second computing device, an arrival notification, responsive to determining that the current location of the portable computing device is within the identified first region, the arrival notification including an identification of the current location of the portable computing device within one of a plurality of subregions of the first region defined by a corresponding plurality of geofences.

Obviousness Argument:
A PHOSITA would be familiar with portable devices receiving geofence definitions, determining their location (e.g., via GPS [cite: Many portable electronic or computing devices]), comparing that location to a geofence, and transmitting notifications upon entry [cite: the device may trigger the event or reminder, such as playing a sound or displaying a message.].

The novel aspect in this claim is the arrival notification "including an identification of the current location of the portable computing device within one of a plurality of subregions of the first region." If a central system (as in Claim 1) is designed to perform comparative demographic analysis across multiple subregions, it is an obvious and necessary step for the portable device to transmit location information with sufficient granularity to allow the server to identify which specific subregion the device has entered. A PHOSITA, tasked with enabling a central server to differentiate locations within a larger geofenced area (comprising subregions), would naturally implement the device to either:

1. Transmit its raw, precise geographic coordinates, allowing the server to determine the subregion.
2. (As claimed) Have the device itself determine its presence in a subregion and include that identification in the notification.

Both approaches involve transmitting location data relevant to subregions, and the latter is a straightforward implementation choice for optimizing server-side processing or managing network load. The motivation would be to provide the central service with the necessary data to perform its comparative functions, a goal described by the patent itself [cite: Geolocation information].